Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the existence of "God" possible?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It doesn't work that way. Either identity exists absolutely or it doesn't exist at all. What you're saying is nonsense.

And a powerful being that doesn't at all contradict identity wouldn't be a "god" in any sense of the word.

But why is identity "all or nothing?" And must god - qua creator of the physical universe - contradict identity in the first place?

Even pagan gods fell under the heading of supernatural, however. The contradiction, in that case, is that there is and can be no such thing as a "super"-nature. Something's nature IS it's identity. Super-nature means that it exists "above" or in contradiction of identity.

It may be a semantic issue, but "supernatural" also means outside the "natural" - qua physical - world. If a god were supernatural in this sense, he wouldn't necessarily contradict identity.

On the other hand, if supernatural" is taken as "beyond identity/quantifying," that isn't necessarily a god quality. Pagan gods generally operated under certain rules i.e. they weren't generally omnipotent or omniscient.

The specific contradiction of each claimed instance of godhood need not be precisely the same; it is sufficient to say that all proposed concepts of god are demonstrably in contradiction with established metaphysics. It is not necessary to refute each and every one of them endlessly; religionists can imagine new gods at an incredible rate. The burden of proof lies with the man who asserts the existence of ANY kind of god. Let him demonstrate that such a thing DOES exist. Let him present EVIDENCE.

Only with EVIDENCE can any discussion of the possibility of a god proceed. All else is futile.

Ah, I was going off the initial post's asking for a definitive proof that a god can or can't exist.

While I don't believe there could be a definitive proof that a god does exist, I also question whether the "establishment" of any given metaphysical system can be considered a definitive proof that a god doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

But why is identity "all or nothing?"
Because the law of identity is:

...nothing can be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect

That's all or nothing as far as I can tell.

And must god - qua creator of the physical universe - contradict identity in the first place?
Yes.

Is God the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.

Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance." It is causality.

Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given...

Every argument commonly offered for the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy. At every point, the notion clashes with the facts of reality and with the preconditions of thought...

The point is broader than religion. It is inherant in any advocacy of a transcendant dimension. Any attempt to defend or define the supernatural must necessarily collapse in fallacies. There is no logic that will lead one from the facts of this world to a realm contradicting them; there is no concept formed by observation of nature that will serve to characterize its antithesis. Inference from the natural can lead only to more of the natural, i.e. to limited, finite entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. Such entities do not fulfill the requirements of "God" or even of "poltergeist." As far as reason and logic are concerned, existence exists and only existence exists.

Something that didn't contradict the axioms of philosophy couldn't properly be called a "god."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all or nothing as far as I can tell.

That particular quote is non-contradiction, which isn't quite the same as saying that every existent is completely delimited.

To use the "god and boulder" example:

If nothing can be A and non-A, it would be contradictory to say that a god could lift any weight, but not a weight too heavy for him to lift. But if the god's ability is to lift any liftable (i.e. non-infinite) weight?

It can be argued that an omnipotence limited by non-contradiction isn't really omnipotence (i.e. questions the godhood,) but nevertheless the quote you refer to doesn't say that the ability to lift any quantifiable mass is contradictory to identity.

Something that didn't contradict the axioms of philosophy couldn't properly be called a "god."

Ah, that expands it from contradicting identity to contradicting a host of metaphysical issues. Points taken, though I'm not sure it's prudent on my part to (devil's) advocate an elaborate rebuttal. Even questioning all of those things would likely be too many directions for a topic. I'll keep your quote in mind, but I'll try to limit my case to whether "god" has to contradict "identity."

Just so it doesn't seem like I'm being evasive, I'm working from the idea of a god as - creator of physical universe, powers at the least limited by non-contradiction, not necessarily omniscient.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but does such a idea of "god" necessarily contradict identity and/or godhood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HunterRose,

The key is not whether the idea of God is contradictory. The key is that the idea is arbitrary. In other words, the key is not whether we have reason to disbelieve in the existence of God, the key is that we have no reason to believe in God.

The idea of God is therefore arbitrary. Similarly, notions of a gremlin, a boggart, a wizard, a dragon would all be arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is not whether the idea of God is contradictory. The key is that the idea is arbitrary. In other words, the key is not whether we have reason to disbelieve in the existence of God, the key is that we have no reason to believe in God.

Oh, I agree absolutely with that. My point was merely that while refusing to face the arbitrary nature of "god" is blatant evasion, saying that the concept of "god" is contradictory is a wholly different beast. It's a more definitive claim, but also more difficult to demonstrate.

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't ignoring the arbitrary nature of "god;" I was just going off the initial post's statements:

Please ignore the fact that the question itself can be shown to be arbitrary, just as the question "Can globular clusters, whose defining characteristics aren't found in a single other entity in reality, exist?" can be shown as arbitrary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is not whether the idea of God is contradictory. The key is that the idea is arbitrary. In other words, the key is not whether we have reason to disbelieve in the existence of God, the key is that we have no reason to believe in God.
On the other hand, there is a significant difference between god and gremlins. The universe would still be 'sensible' if gremlins or dragons existed, though it would require things to have evolved differently on Earth, and while I can't get too specific about the evolutionary mechanisms that might have resulted in such beings, they would not contradict anything fundamental to the nature of life and existence that I know of. God, however, would be an incomprehensible being (under the more standard views of god -- excluding god in this sense or this) whose very existence entails contraditions. So in addition to being arbitrary, god is contradictory (I'm not clear about the attributes of this kind of god or this one, so I don't know whether they are "supernatural" or simply "extraordinary"; whereas this guy and this one are given impossible attributes).

An arbitrary claim is one lacking evidence one way or the other. The fact that god (in the strong sense) is a contradiction is evidence that his supposed existence is false, not merely arbitrary. If someone wants to hedge their claim about what they mean by "god" so that this could be called "god", I think we should encourage them to make clear how silly the idea is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so it doesn't seem like I'm being evasive, I'm working from the idea of a god as - creator of physical universe, powers at the least limited by non-contradiction, not necessarily omniscient.

You cannot create something out of nothing. Therefore a creature that creates something out of nothing cannot exist in reality. Your "god" is impossible. Would you like to modify your definition? From what does he create this "physical reality"?

But before you attempt another definition, I'd like to point out that you really have not even begun to give us a meaningful idea of this imaginary "god." You haven't even told us whether he's matter or spirit, or a combination of both. Try starting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be consistent with Objectivism to think of God as the universe itself? A pantheistic view similar to the one Einstein held. It seems to me that if one were to "believe" in God, that this would be the most logical and accurate way to believe in God, since denying that existence would deny the existence of something rather than nothing, and therefore deny existence itself. This concept, however, relys heavily (completely) on the definition of God, and therefore may be inconsistent with the previous post's attempts to define God. I think it is something to consider in this discussion, if it hasn't already been discussed. Where would the law of Identity fit into this definition?

This idea might be equally as, logical as Atheism, since it doesn't like most theologies rest on A is not A, but actually seems to define A as A. God is the Universe. This would mean that one could say ,"we don't understand everything about God", and be saying an accurate statement. One could say "God is non-man," and be accurate. Can anyone comment on this sort of definition of God? I think it is an interesting perspective to consider since the posted topic originally asked "if God can exist?" If one were to think of God as the universe, then yes the universe can and does exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot create something out of nothing. Therefore a creature that creates something out of nothing cannot exist in reality. Your "god" is impossible. Would you like to modify your definition? From what does he create this "physical reality"?

Even if matter couldn't be created out of non-matter, what would be the metaphysical basis for such a claim? Unless it is metaphysically contradictory, I don't think the definition needs to be modified.

But before you attempt another definition, I'd like to point out that you really have not even begun to give us a meaningful idea of this imaginary "god." You haven't even told us whether he's matter or spirit, or a combination of both. Try starting there.

Sure. In addition to creator of physical universe, powers at the least limited by non-contradiction, and not necessarily omniscient, add

spirt (non-physical) being.

Would it be consistent with Objectivism to think of God as the universe itself?

One possible weakness of that argument may be that God here seems to merely be a synonym for the universe (or existence.) I'm not sure if that is a correct assumption, but if it is, then "god" wouldn't have much meaning, and any godhood characteristics (creation, omni-potence/science, extradimensional, etc) would be just as equally consistent or contradictory as otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if matter couldn't be created out of non-matter, what would be the metaphysical basis for such a claim? Unless it is metaphysically contradictory, I don't think the definition needs to be modified.

It is your fantasy of god that has no metaphysical basis whatsoever. Therefore, it is evasive and hypocritical of you to require that my conclusion have a metaphysical basis.

However, with that said, I don't want to avoid the question entirely. So I'll simply say this: You seem to be confusing the difference between "nothing" and "non-matter." I said that you can't create something out of nothing. Then you restated my position as "you can't create matter out of non-matter," which is a different position. Non-matter can be spirit. But nothing is nothing, not even spirit. Thus, you have evaded my original point with some wordplay and thrown us onto a sidetrack--a course I refuse to take until you address my original argument. How does your god create physical reality out of nothing? Does he wish it into existence? Or do you believe that something can be created out of nothing? Nothing being a zero or that which does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any argument about God must be contextualized to have a basis. I am currently studying biblical literature, and I can tell you that the origination of Judaism essentially disallows the existence of God as envisioned by the people who created Him. The Hebrew Bible is an amalgamation of many sources, stemming from folk tales, myths, legends, and mysticism. If looked at in the context of its writing, the Bible is as simple to understand, in terms of its origin, as any tribal belief system.

So the question is not, "Is there a God as described by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)?" but instead, "Does there exist an entity which defies the laws that govern all other existence?"

And the answer to this question, in my opinion, is no. The reason for this is that a law can only be a law if there are no exceptions. If there exists something that contradicts our premises, we must change them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an argument that god doesn't exist and as far as I skimmed through this thread is has not yet appeared:

If god is omnipotent (and he is, why else would he be called 'The Almighty'?), can he create a stone that he cannot lift?

The very concept of omnipotence is flawed.

And the idea that god is still omnipotent, because he only does what he does and 'all' doesn't have to mean 'all' is invalid, too.

I am omnipotent.

I created existence. I don't really like to show off with it, but hey, I did it. B)

No, I won't give you an example of my powers, because I don't want to. :P But I am still omnipotent. And I eat because I want to. I also sleep because I want to. And I grow older because I want to.

And if you shoot me and I die it's also because I want to.

What I want to say with this is:

You cannot be omnipotent once in a while.

Either you are or you are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the concept "God" does not link to anything in reality, it leads to difficulties in defining it. Therefore, everyone is working off a different definition. Even the Christian God is different to different Christians. As long as we leave the concept arbitrary, we cannot prove anything about his contradictory nature.

Everyone here seems to agree that any God that is omni-anything is a self-contradiction. Any God that exists outside of existence is not possible. Any God that created anything ex nihilo is likewise non-existent.

But when you get into gods like Hercules, who were superhuman, there existence is in the realm of possibilities (meaning non-contradictory). To A. afarensis, for instance, we would be "super" to them, having the ability to use our minds far beyond what they could. Likewise, some human with, say, sonar capabilities would be a "super" human, assuming all else being equal. Are these gods, though?

God is defined by Mirriam-Webster as:

1. The supreme or ultimate reality: as (a) the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe (:P Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3 : a person or thing of supreme value

4 : a powerful ruler

Definition one can both be non-contradictory and contradictory. If God is the supreme or ultimate reality, then God is merely existence, which exists, and therefore God exists. The concept God, in this case, would be useless, since we already have the concept existence, and they mean the same thing.

Besides the difficulties in defining "perfection" in power, wisdom, and goodness (potentially perfection is being all-powerful, -wise, and -good, all three being contradictory), God could not create the universe, unless we assume that God himself is say, someone existing outside our universe (universe not being equal to existence, but more like maybe inside a gravastar, or one of many multiverses or something). This is arbitrary, though, and most likely never demonstrable, so it is useless to postulate.

The whole "eternal Spirit" nonsense is just mysticism, and could never be defended by a rational argument.

And an infinite mind, while not even definable (what is the quantity for mind?), cannot exist, since it is infinite.

Definition two starts out with the tricky notion of "natural" attributes, which could be a number of things (like "common", or "found in nature", or "genetically encoded", or "possible by the laws of physics"), so a God with "supernatural" abilities could and could not be possible, depending on your definition of natural. "Requiring worship" is never justified -- just because someone can do something special, it does not follow that I owe him my worship.

Definition three is what Rand uses in Anthem when her character becomes a "God". Since I am of supreme value to myself, I am my own God.

Definition 4 is pretty archaic.

So what are we going to use as the definition of God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is your fantasy of god that has no metaphysical basis whatsoever. Therefore, it is evasive and hypocritical of you to require that my conclusion have a metaphysical basis.

The whole point of this topic is whether a god can exist, which I take to mean whether "god's" existence or non-existence is necessarily contradictory. If you were saying that "god" was contradictory, I merely asked how.

How does your god create physical reality out of nothing?

I have no idea. I don't hold that a god has to or does create something out of nothing. Off-hand, I agree with you on this.

If there exists something that contradicts our premises, we must change

I agree.

If god is omnipotent (and he is, why else would he be called 'The Almighty'?), can he create a stone that he cannot lift?

The very concept of omnipotence is flawed.

I'm not sure if it was in this topic, or the original topic, but that example has been used. It still makes a good point, though.

Someone said that such arguments are moot, as "omnipotent" means being able to do anything that's possible, which I take to mean any non-contradictory thing. Thus, an omnipotent god couldn't be here and not be here, or be able to lift anything and not lift a certain weight, and yet maintain his omnipotence.

Ultimately whether a non-contradictory "omnipotence" is really omnipotence doesn't really concern me. I don't believe contradictory omnipotence is possible (largely because of arguments similar to Felix's,) but at the same time, IMO contradictory omniscience isn't a necessary condition of godhood.

So what are we going to use as the definition of God?

If everyone agrees I offer this as a definition of a god:

A god is an entity which has at least one of the following characteristics:

1) creator of the (physical) universe from the god's consciousness

2) powers limited only by non-contradiction

3) cognitive being able to exist outside of the bounds/laws of a created (physical) universe.

I'd hold that a being that possessed any one of those characteristics would be a god, though there is room to digress.

I refer to "universe" as "all physical (matter) existents." In other words, creating the universe wouldn't necessarily be the same thing as creating existence.

If you prove #1 to be contradictory, then "god as creator of existence" and "creation from nothing" are contradictory.

If you prove #2 to be contradictory, then "god as omnipotent" is contradictory.

If you prove #3 is contradictory, then "god as beyond existence" is contradictory.

And IMO proving all three to be contradictory would prove the concept of god to be contradictory.

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be consistent with Objectivism to think of God as the universe itself?
Yes, becuse if you were to observe those concepts referred to when people speak of "god", it has certain characteristics in common. Not the least of which is sentience. The universe is not sentient. The concept of "god" becomes totally irrelevant in Objectivism; and invoking "if you redefine" does not help. I can just as well say that I've redefined god as "a particular positive evaluation" and also redefined the pronunciation of the word as "goo". Sure, but that ain't English.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll keep your quote in mind, but I'll try to limit my case to whether "god" has to contradict "identity."

the quote you refer to doesn't say that the ability to lift any quantifiable mass is contradictory to identity.

I think that the "ability to lift any quantifiable mass" would be contrary to identity. Basically, the strength would have to be larger than any quantifiable mass, i.e. infinite.

But my point is already proven and you have accepted that "god" isn't possible. This part is just gravy, so I will leave you all to it. Later. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think the definition for a god in #89 is serviceable?

I think that the "ability to lift any quantifiable mass" would be contrary to identity. Basically, the strength would have to be larger than any quantifiable mass, i.e. infinite.

But my point is already proven and you have accepted that "god" isn't possible. This part is just gravy, so I will leave you all to it. Later. :)

I accepted it? When? You proved it??? Where?

Simply saying that "the ability to lift any quantifiable mass" is contradictory to identity is not a proof, or even an argument.

If you're referring to the boulder example, that proves that omniscience must be limited by non-contradiction, and perhaps thus that omniscience can't exist. The boulder example doesn't show that "the ability to lift any quantifiable mass" or "powers limited by non-contradiction" can't exist.

And I never believed or implied that absolute omniscience was a necessary condition of godhood, so I doubt that I've "accepted" your proof that "god" isn't possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some odd reason, I misread the question as asking if it would be inconsistent. Obviously it is not consistent with Objectivism to arbitrarily redefine words, so change that to "no".

The original post you were replying to did not appear in this thread to me. Is that because it is in another thread, and you somehow posted to this one when you replied, or is it because I am a limited member or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A god is an entity which has at least one of the following characteristics:

1) creator of the (physical) universe from the god's consciousness

2) powers limited only by non-contradiction

3) cognitive being able to exist outside of the bounds/laws of a created (physical) universe.

(1) Places consciousness as primary over existence.

(2) You have to define what these powers would be that are non-contradictory (X-ray vision or something)? Clearly, no existant can be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or all good. Whether or not a god could control lightning or not is limited by physics, and thus far would be conceivable (so long as the "God" uses technology to do it; I'm not so sure any organism could evolve that could control weather... except maybe Storm on X-Men, of course!)

(3) is impossible. Something cannot exist if it is not possible to exist.

God, as defined by (1), (3), and in certain aspects (2), would not be possible. And granted that parts of (2) are possible, would something that was just better than the rest of us be a god? Were Pacos Bill, John Henry, and Paul Bunyan gods? Or by "powers limited by..." do you mean that a God is capable of doing everything possible, i.e. non-contradictory? So long as those powers are within the physically possible as well (like not travelling faster than light), then it is conceivable. But notice that this rules gods like Haephestos out of godhood, as Haephestos could not do everything, just some things. Only the Abrahamic God and others comprable in power could exist minus their "contradictory" powers, but as far as I know, there has never been a nigh-omnipotent god defined in a religion, as the concept is useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original post you were replying to did not appear in this thread to me. Is that because it is in another thread, and you somehow posted to this one when you replied, or is it because I am a limited member or something?

The other mentioning of the unliftable boulder? It might be somewhere here.

That is indeed a different topic, though that may not be the one I referred to either :( I read it in some God topic, I just don't remember which one! There's a bunch interesting dormant topics here :lol:

A god is an entity which has at least one of the following characteristics:

1) creator of the (physical) universe from the god's consciousness

(1) Places consciousness as primary over existence.

Granted. If "primacy of existence" can indeed be taken as true, I will accept 1) as contradictory. My next question then would be how is "primacy of existence" necessarily derived from the axioms of existence/identity and consciousness? Unless someone else wishes to explain, I'll have to go through OPAR on this before I reply further.

2) powers limited only by non-contradiction

(2) You have to define what these powers would be that are non-contradictory (X-ray vision or something)?

Well here I mean non-contradiction in the sense that a god couldn't do things such as lift an unliftable boulder, or be here and not be here. Either a god couldn't create something he couldn't lift, or he couldn't lift something he made as unliftable. That's the only condition I'm placing on the god's power. While I agree that absolute (contradictory) omnipotence is itself contradictory, I'm not sure about 2).

I don't mean non-contradiction as unable to violate physical laws...

:worry: ...hmm, I suppose any being capable of 2) would also be capable of 3). I didn't realize that before :dough:

Since 2) requires 3) to be non-contradictory, I'll restate the definition for all intents and purposes as:

A god is an entity which has at least one of the following characteristics:

1) creator of the (physical) universe from the god's consciousness

3) cognitive being able to exist outside of the bounds/laws of a created (physical) universe.

3) cognitive being able to exist outside of the bounds/laws of a created (physical) universe.

(3) is impossible. Something cannot exist if it is not possible to exist.

I don't mean existing outside of the bounds of existence, which I wouldn't accept.

I mean existing outside of the laws of physical existence. That is, not being affected by gravity, mass and weight constrictions, the speed limit of light, etc.

God, as defined by (1), (3)... would not be possible.

We shall see :) :)

But notice that this rules gods like Haephestos out of godhood, as Haephestos could not do everything, just some things. Only the Abrahamic God and others comprable in power could exist minus their "contradictory" powers, but as far as I know, there has never been a nigh-omnipotent god defined in a religion, as the concept is useless.

True, I didn't include "gods" like the Greek/Egyptian/Norse gods, but if the ultimate type of god isn't contradictory, I assume the lesser gods would also be non-contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original post you were replying to did not appear in this thread to me. Is that because it is in another thread, and you somehow posted to this one when you replied, or is it because I am a limited member or something?
I dunno. It's here and the content was:
Would it be consistent with Objectivism to think of God as the universe itself? A pantheistic view similar to the one Einstein held. It seems to me that if one were to "believe" in God, that this would be the most logical and accurate way to believe in God, since denying that existence would deny the existence of something rather than nothing, and therefore deny existence itself. This concept, however, relys heavily (completely) on the definition of God, and therefore may be inconsistent with the previous post's attempts to define God. I think it is something to consider in this discussion, if it hasn't already been discussed. Where would the law of Identity fit into this definition?

This idea might be equally as, logical as Atheism, since it doesn't like most theologies rest on A is not A, but actually seems to define A as A. God is the Universe. This would mean that one could say ,"we don't understand everything about God", and be saying an accurate statement. One could say "God is non-man," and be accurate. Can anyone comment on this sort of definition of God? I think it is an interesting perspective to consider since the posted topic originally asked "if God can exist?" If one were to think of God as the universe, then yes the universe can and does exist.

Is it really invisible? Am I seeing things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "primacy of existence" can indeed be taken as true, I will accept 1) as contradictory. My next question then would be how is "primacy of existence" necessarily derived from the axioms of existence/identity and consciousness? Unless someone else wishes to explain, I'll have to go through OPAR on this before I reply further.

Primacy of existence is an axiom of existence. If there were no humans, or other conscious animals, existence would still exist, and therefore the primacy of existence comes before the primacy of consciousness.

I mean existing outside of the laws of physical existence. That is, not being affected by gravity, mass and weight constrictions, the speed limit of light, etc.
This is also against the primacy of existence and identity. Existence is existence, and as such, any existant is subject to the laws of existence (i.e. physics), such as gravity (if it has mass) and the speed of light.

if the ultimate type of god isn't contradictory, I assume the lesser gods would also be non-contradictory.

They are possibly not analogous. And I think we have shown that the "greater" gods are contradictory. Where does that leave the "lesser" ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accepted it? When? You proved it??? Where?

Yikes, calm down! :dough: You said you accepted that "god" contradicted at least one of the axioms, if not identity. It was here:

Ah, that expands it from contradicting identity to contradicting a host of metaphysical issues. Points taken, though I'm not sure it's prudent on my part to (devil's) advocate an elaborate rebuttal. Even questioning all of those things would likely be too many directions for a topic. I'll keep your quote in mind, but I'll try to limit my case to whether "god" has to contradict "identity."
If you just meant to say that you had no counter-argument, rather than that you had accepted mine, then I have simply misunderstood you. If so, then sorry.

Simply saying that "the ability to lift any quantifiable mass" is contradictory to identity is not a proof, or even an argument.

Right, but the argument was the sentence DIRECTLY FOLLOWING that one. :)

The boulder example doesn't show that "the ability to lift any quantifiable mass" or "powers limited by non-contradiction" can't exist.

It shows that "the ability to lift any quantifiable mass" is a contradiction. Powers limited by non-contradiction, on the other hand, could indeed exist.

And I never believed or implied that absolute omniscience was a necessary condition of godhood, so I doubt that I've "accepted" your proof that "god" isn't possible.

A lot of people do believe that absolute omniscience is a necessary condition of godhood. I think you're chasing your philosophical tail: either you invent a BooGie with attributes that contradict axioms, or you invent something that isn't in fact a BooGie, but merely a Gremlin of some sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Primacy of existence is an axiom of existence. If there were no humans, or other conscious animals, existence would still exist, and therefore the primacy of existence comes before the primacy of consciousness.

I will agree that consciousness can't exist before existence; if a consciousness exists, then an existent (the consciousness) exists.

However, that doesn't in and of itself say:

- existence chronologically precedes consciousness (they could be concurrent?)

- a "god" couldn't create physical existents from his consciousness

I acknowledge that no consciousness can create existence in toto; that's not necessarily the same as saying a god couldn't create physical (matter) existence.

[Violating scientific law]is also against the primacy of existence and identity. Existence is existence, and as such, any existant is subject to the laws of existence (i.e. physics), such as gravity (if it has mass) and the speed of light.

I'm not sure of the basis of saying that consciousness can't create any physical existents. How do we come to that part of primacy of existence?

They are possibly not analogous. And I think we have shown that the "greater" gods are contradictory. Where does that leave the "lesser" ones?
If the Christian god or any other "greater god" could exist, I don't think "lesser gods" would be a stretch of possibility. We have shown that:

- "god" creating existence (god can't create himself) is contradictory (to existence?)

- ultimate omniscience (creating and lifting the unliftable) is contradictory to identity

I don't think it has been shown that:

- "god" couldn't have created physical existence

- nigh-infinite power (ability to lift any quantifiable mass) is contradictory

- every consciousness is bound by scientific laws

If you just meant to say that you had no counter-argument, rather than that you had accepted mine, then I have simply misunderstood you. If so, then sorry.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I didn't mean I accepted god's contradiction or had no counter-argument. I just meant that at that point I didn't want to argue too many points at one time. It seems that I was just delaying the inevitable, though :)

I suppose I was somewhat unclear; the "acceptance" on my part was that "god" might not contradict one of the axioms (which was all I was thinking about at that point) but still be contradictory to one of the axioms' necessary derivatives.

It shows that "the ability to lift any quantifiable mass" is a contradiction. Powers limited by non-contradiction, on the other hand, could indeed exist.
There seems to be multiple uses of "contradictory to identity" being used.

a: "blatant contradiction" - being A and not-A - this is blatantly contradictory because something can't be two exclusively different things. I don't think anyone argues with this.

b: nigh-infinite contradiction - e.g. "god" could lift any quantifiable mass, or all existent mass (but not something that's an unliftable [infinite] mass.) I don't see how this violates the law of identity. Having identity doesn't necessarily mean being totally delimited, does it?

c: physical contradiction - e.g. moving faster than the speed of light, or perhaps being in more than one place. I question what way this contradicts identity too.

a is granted. How is b and/or c contradictory?

A lot of people do believe that absolute omniscience is a necessary condition of godhood. I think you're chasing your philosophical tail: either you invent a BooGie with attributes that contradict axioms, or you invent something that isn't in fact a BooGie, but merely a Gremlin of some sort.

I don't deny many people define godhood as omniscience. Many also recognize "contradictory omniscience" (lifting and creating the unliftable) is impossible, but don't hold nigh-infinite powers or omniscience as a necessary quality of godhood anyway. Showing omniscience in the ultimate sense is contradictory thus doesn't really prove that "god" can't exist, in and of itself.

If one can prove the conditions of godhood to be contradictory, then you've proven the god can't exist.

Besides, you can't get mad if I don't give a definition, and mad if I do give a definition :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...