God's Non Existence

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

Proving that God does not exist. 

Can someone evaluate my reasoning here.

Axiom : Law of Identity

Observation : Self Evident

Claim : There is a being that can do the miraculous.

Definition of Mircale : an event that is not explicable according to natural laws, but super (above) nature. 

Violation : Law of Identity

If someone claims that there is a being that can alter eixstence in a way that violates the law of identity then can’t it be said that it would be impossible for that being to exist? Why is this not a plain and simple proof that there is no God that meets this criterion and is therefore incoherent as an asserition that God (this kind of god) exist. 

A true miracle would be to turn water into wine. It would not be miraculous of water on its own to turn to wine if it could do this by the means of natural process. The notion of a miracle is “super” natural inexplicable according to natural laws. This assumes that the identity of win is different the natural identity of water. To make this happen there would have to be a violation of the Law of Identity.  That is to say, that water would not really have identity in the first place. To have identity is to be something specific. Water cannot be water and also wine at the same time according to its identity. Hence, for someone to say that there is a being that could do such an act is to prove that such a being is incoherent and cannot said to exist in reality.

Reality itself is the proof that God does not exist. Hence either God exists (which is incoherent) or reality exists. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. 

2

Reality cannot be proof of non-reality. If anything, it is the absence of God that “proves” its non-existence. What you’re doing is mistaking a supernatural law (miracle) for a natural one (identity). If you begin with a supernatural being (God), then there is no logical error in claiming a supernatural cause (miracle) for its action (turning water into wine). The error is in the acceptance of the arbitrary, not in the reasoning process. It is a problem with choice. Faith is the rejection of reality in favor of fantasy.  

3

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Reality cannot be proof of non-reality. If anything, it is the absence of God that “proves” its non-existence. What you’re doing is mistaking a supernatural law (miracle) for a natural one (identity). If you begin with a supernatural being (God), then there is no logical error in claiming a supernatural cause (miracle) for its action (turning water into wine). The error is in the acceptance of the arbitrary, not in the reasoning process. It is a problem with choice. Faith is the rejection of reality in favor of fantasy.  

 

My only issue with what you are saying is that it is no coherent to begin with a supernatural being as if has equal status in reality. This would seem to be rationalizing without justification. I can only begin with reality (existence, identity, and consciousness) and then see what ideas correspond with them. I see no meaning in suspending reality to allow God to be a starting point. 

 

Also, I am not sure I can even coherently say that God is “absent” in the sense that one is absent from a room. This assumes that a person “could be” in a room and just is not at the moment. To be absent is not the same as not existing. 

 

What I am proving is similar to proving that there is no giraffe in the room playing chess with an alligator. This idea does not in anyway correspond with reality and is incoherent. Giraffes cannot play chess because they are animals and do not have the ability to form abstractions. Therefore, a chess playing giraffe cannot exist and to try to make an argument for one would be incoherent. 

 

I am attempting to prove a negative by showing that what I am denying is a logical impossibility. That is not to say that it is improbable. I am saying that this concept is incoherent and therefore not true.

 

Lastly,  I think that your understanding of causation is not accurate. The cause of an action is the identity of the action, not another entity acting upon the entity. It is the law of identity applied to action (Binswanger). It is incoherent to say that a supernatural being “caused” water to turn into wine. One, the cause of water turning into anything is the identity of the water not something outside of the water. Water turns into ice because of its own identity not because it gets freezing temperatures outside. If freezing temperatures where to cause of things turning into “ice” then rocks would turn into ice simply be them being in contact with freezing temperature. Two, my point is that nothing can cause the identity of a thing to change it identity, especially since identity is what makes it the very thing it is to begin with. This is why I am saying that the concept of a being that can do miracles is incoherent. 

4

11 hours ago, Veritas said:

Why is this not a plain and simple proof that there is no God that meets this criterion and is therefore incoherent as an asserition that God (this kind of god) exist. 

Appeals to incoherence are incoherent once an omnipotent God is stipulated as a premise.

5

6 minutes ago, Grames said:

Appeals to incoherence are incoherent once an omnipotent God is stipulated as a premise.

My point is that unless one is committed to “rationalism” as a valid epistemology then there can’t be just random premises unrelated to reality. 

6

4 hours ago, Veritas said:

I can only begin with reality (existence, identity, and consciousness) and then see what ideas correspond with them. I see no meaning in suspending reality to allow God to be a starting point. 

But God is your starting point. You defined him as having a power “above nature.” Then you claim that such power violates a law of nature. Yet it’s not part of nature. It’s above nature, by definition. It’s an ability of God. So you’re contradicting your own starting point.

4 hours ago, Veritas said:

To be absent is not the same as not existing. 

Yes, that was the implication of my scare quotes around “prove.”

4 hours ago, Veritas said:

What I am proving is similar to proving that there is no giraffe in the room playing chess with an alligator.

Except that you have not defined those animals as having supernatural chess-playing powers.

4 hours ago, Veritas said:

The cause of an action is the identity of the action, not another entity acting upon the entity. It is the law of identity applied to action (Binswanger). It is incoherent to say that a supernatural being “caused” water to turn into wine.

You’re presenting a hypothetical of water turning into wine. In such a supernatural scenario, the cause would be a supernatural force, i.e., God. It doesn’t make sense to set up the supernatural event and then claim it can’t happen because it’s not natural. You’re not dealing with a natural event to begin with.

4 hours ago, Veritas said:

Water turns into ice because of its own identity not because it gets freezing temperatures outside. If freezing temperatures where to cause of things turning into “ice” then rocks would turn into ice simply be them being in contact with freezing temperature.

Real water doesn’t turn into ice on its own, just like the hypothetical water couldn’t turn into wine on its own. Something else must force them to change. Real water turns to ice because of a natural reaction to temperature, which is caused by various environmental factors. The hypothetical water turns to wine because of a supernatural reaction to God’s power of miracles. You can’t grant God a nature-violating power and then complain that he’s violating the nature of water. It’s inconsistent.     

1 Like
7

Peikoff addresses this quite well in one of his courses.  History of philosophy or Modern Philosophy…

In addressing “the arbitrary” he is clear in stating You cannot prove a negative and The onus is on he who asserts the positive. This I think is quite true.  

The only evidence of reality is ultimately perceptual … even when indirect measurement and scientific instrumentation is used, a blip on a screen can serve as evidence of a subatomic particle.  This is why one relies on perceptual evidence to assert the existence of something.  You speak of rationalism… rationalism would present as an attempt to prove something about reality absent any empirical evidence.

It is pointless to debate anything in the absence of evidence. In order to have a position one must have SOME evidence.  The person asserting an arbitrary existent has nothing to point to in support of his position that the thing exists.  The little man in the fridge who turns on the light leaves no footprints.  Quite rightly that position should be dismissed as arbitrary.  Going any farther, like trying to prove the non existence of the thing is a huge mistake for a similar reason.  But the non existence of a thing, not only DOES NOT leave any evidence, the non existence of a thing CANNOT leave behind any evidence.  

Evidence is ultimately an effect observable in reality, effects presuppose causes and causes require existents. An absence, a non existent can never itself be a cause.. it is nothing, does nothing, and causes nothing.

Peikoff gives a great example of how it would be futile to try to prove the non existence of say the Devil.  I can’t paraphrase but I’ll try to convey the sense of it.  Although you could point out to the Devil worshipper that there are no traces of this Devil, no footprints, or any other trail of evidence… no observable effects, the same would apply to your attempt to prove the non existence of the Devil.  The non existence of the Devil has no observable effect, no little signs poking up from the ground stating the Devil does not exist… again effects presuppose causes which require existents. The best evidence for your position against the arbitrary claim is the absence of any evidence for it, i.e. the fact that it is an arbitrary claim.  That does not and cannot prove non existence of the thing, but you can identify the position as arbitrary and invalid and hold the person to the onus to provide some evidence for his position.

You cannot prove a negative.  The onus is on he who asserts the positive.

 

8

10 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

But God is your starting point. You defined him as having a power “above nature.” Then you claim that such power violates a law of nature. Yet it’s not part of nature. It’s above nature, by definition. It’s an ability of God. So you’re contradicting your own starting point.

Yes, that was the implication of my scare quotes around “prove.”

Except that you have not defined those animals as having supernatural chess-playing powers.

You’re presenting a hypothetical of water turning into wine. In such a supernatural scenario, the cause would be a supernatural force, i.e., God. It doesn’t make sense to set up the supernatural event and then claim it can’t happen because it’s not natural. You’re not dealing with a natural event to begin with.

Real water doesn’t turn into ice on its own, just like the hypothetical water couldn’t turn into wine on its own. Something else must force them to change. Real water turns to ice because of a natural reaction to temperature, which is caused by various environmental factors. The hypothetical water turns to wine because of a supernatural reaction to God’s power of miracles. You can’t grant God a nature-violating power and then complain that he’s violating the nature of water. It’s inconsistent.     

 When you say God is my starting point, I don’t mean that it is “my” starting point as if I am the one presenting the argument for the existence of God. I am simply granting the person ability to make the claim. At the point that the claim is made I am trying to show that the claim is ultimately incoherent by showing that the “idea or description” God contradicts nature. I am not granting the person a right to claim another “type” of existence. I am in essence showing that three is only one possible type of existence and if anything or any claim is asserted that contradicts that claim then it cannot exist. 

 

Secondarily, when you say that water turns to ice due to environmental factors are you saying this in a way that is consistent with an objectivist view of causality? As far as I have read so far, from an objectivist perspective what causes an entity to act is the identity of the entity. While there are environmental factors that exist, it is not due to environmental factors that cause the water to change, it is due to the identity of the water. Environmental factors happen and what is caused by any entity is directly related to the identity of the entity and not directly related to the external factor.

9

4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Peikoff addresses this quite well in one of his courses.  History of philosophy or Modern Philosophy…

In addressing “the arbitrary” he is clear in stating You cannot prove a negative and The onus is on he who asserts the positive. This I think is quite true.  

The only evidence of reality is ultimately perceptual … even when indirect measurement and scientific instrumentation is used, a blip on a screen can serve as evidence of a subatomic particle.  This is why one relies on perceptual evidence to assert the existence of something.  You speak of rationalism… rationalism would present as an attempt to prove something about reality absent any empirical evidence.

It is pointless to debate anything in the absence of evidence. In order to have a position one must have SOME evidence.  The person asserting an arbitrary existent has nothing to point to in support of his position that the thing exists.  The little man in the fridge who turns on the light leaves no footprints.  Quite rightly that position should be dismissed as arbitrary.  Going any farther, like trying to prove the non existence of the thing is a huge mistake for a similar reason.  But the non existence of a thing, not only DOES NOT leave any evidence, the non existence of a thing CANNOT leave behind any evidence.  

Evidence is ultimately an effect observable in reality, effects presuppose causes and causes require existents. An absence, a non existent can never itself be a cause.. it is nothing, does nothing, and causes nothing.

Peikoff gives a great example of how it would be futile to try to prove the non existence of say the Devil.  I can’t paraphrase but I’ll try to convey the sense of it.  Although you could point out to the Devil worshipper that there are no traces of this Devil, no footprints, or any other trail of evidence… no observable effects, the same would apply to your attempt to prove the non existence of the Devil.  The non existence of the Devil has no observable effect, no little signs poking up from the ground stating the Devil does not exist… again effects presuppose causes which require existents. The best evidence for your position against the arbitrary claim is the absence of any evidence for it, i.e. the fact that it is an arbitrary claim.  That does not and cannot prove non existence of the thing, but you can identify the position as arbitrary and invalid and hold the person to the onus to provide some evidence for his position.

You cannot prove a negative.  The onus is on he who asserts the positive.

 

 

I think I understand and would agree with most of what you are saying. What I am trying to do is show that an “idea” is incoherent. I am not granting any kind of existince to the non existence entity, not even for the sake of argument. I am simply pointing out that the thing that is being claimed to be in the “room” cannot be there by way of incoherency. 

What would you say is the differecne between something being arbitrary and something being incoherent?

10

1 hour ago, Veritas said:

I think I understand and would agree with most of what you are saying. What I am trying to do is show that an “idea” is incoherent. I am not granting any kind of existince to the non existence entity, not even for the sake of argument. I am simply pointing out that the thing that is being claimed to be in the “room” cannot be there by way of incoherency. 

What would you say is the differecne between something being arbitrary and something being incoherent?

In order to avoid rationalism and floating abstractions, one should ground the validity of concepts in perception not simply in some kind of congruence with other concepts.  

So in a sense the concept arbitrary is evaluative of ideas in view of knowledge and ultimately logic as applied to perception, whereas incoherence is a somewhat lesser standard of “coherence” with other ideas.  The concept of coherence is not self inoculating if one’s body of concepts is not correct… one cannot for example, discover that a floating abstraction is invalid by seeing whether it coheres with other floating abstractions.  Because the evaluation of arbitrary has at its core the necessity of evaluation in view ultimately of percepts, it consciously keeps the evaluation grounded in reality.

In the final analysis an arbitrary claim can be (arbitrarily made) to be coherent with all of knowledge and reality.  Someone says there exists an invisible utterly undetectable spaghetti monster having no interaction with our universe except that it converses privately to the mind of that person.  All your knowledge is derived from perception, that you cannot know of this monster from perception is completely coherent with the (arbitrary) idea that it only converses mentally with this person.  That you cannot ever observe any evidence for the existence of the monster is also completely (arbitrarily) coherent with its non interaction with the rest of the universe.  Perhaps this someone knowing how you think would even say (quite arbitrarily) that it is in the particular nature and identity of the thing and the rest of the universe, of its and his particular consciousnesses that there is this strange link between them… action according to their unique natures.. which gives rise to the surprising result.   What he has done is arbitrarily claimed something with the same evidentiary footprint of nothing at all… i.e. his claim of its existence produces the same observable effect as would its non existence.  This person only “wins” when you accept that there is an even playing field here, that you have the onus to prove the non existence of the (arbitrarily coherent) idea without recourse to observable effects.

The mere fact that the idea has no perceptual evidence to back it up, and by definition could not ever be proved or disproved by any observation, is sufficient for you to call it arbitrary and invalid… and holding he who asserts it to the onus of proof by some evidence.

11

3 hours ago, Veritas said:

I am in essence showing that three is only one possible type of existence and if anything or any claim is asserted that contradicts that claim then it cannot exist.

If you begin that way aren’t you begging the question? Imagine a theist doing the same in reverse: there are two possible types of existence, and if anything is asserted that agrees with that claim, then it can exist. There, didn’t I just prove that God can exist?

3 hours ago, Veritas said:

Secondarily, when you say that water turns to ice due to environmental factors are you saying this in a way that is consistent with an objectivist view of causality?

I said water turns to ice because of a reaction to temperature. It is the temperature which is caused by environmental factors. Water can be chilled to its freezing point in different ways. And, yes, I believe this is consistent with Rand’s view of causality. Causality applies to the actions of entities. But it doesn’t mean that entities must cause themselves to act. It means that they act in a particular way to a particular force. Whether that force comes from within or without depends on the action in question. The force that turns water into ice originates from without, from external factors. If you stop chilling water in your freezer, it will stop turning into ice.

12

7 hours ago, Veritas said:

 When you say God is my starting point, I don’t mean that it is “my” starting point as if I am the one presenting the argument for the existence of God. I am simply granting the person ability to make the claim.

And that is why you fail.

13

This link should be good until the end of May 2019.

Atheism or Antireligion.

It is not case of proving a negative, rather one of exposing the contradictions. The case implodes when an opponent has acknowledged that the contradictions are accepted/recognized/seen. Otherwise, like existence and consciousness, the expectation for proof of a negative is the request to step into the void of unreason and join whoever is basking in it.

14

1 hour ago, Grames said:

And that is why you fail.

I don’t grant it is viable I grant it as their freedom to say what they want. I don’t grant them legitimacy.

15

46 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

This link should be good until the end of May 2019.

Atheism or Antireligion.

It is not case of proving a negative, rather one of exposing the contradictions. The case implodes when an opponent has acknowledged that the contradictions are accepted/recognized/seen. Otherwise, like existence and consciousness, the expectation for proof of a negative is the request to step into the void of unreason and join whoever is basking in it.

The paragraph in this article that states what I was saying. “God can allow things to act contrary to their nature, which is also forbidden by a rational metaphysics. Things cannot act against their nature. Not even if someone tries to make them do so.” 

I suppose my error is in stating stricly that I am attempting to prove a negative. In reality i am simply stating that I can make the statement, "God (the one that does mircales) cannot exist. 

16

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If you begin that way aren’t you begging the question? Imagine a theist doing the same in reverse: there are two possible types of existence, and if anything is asserted that agrees with that claim, then it can exist. There, didn’t I just prove that God can exist?

 

I am confused as to what you are saying here. I do not agree that there are two possible types of existince. Only one is real. 

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I said water turns to ice because of a reaction to temperature. It is the temperature which is caused by environmental factors. Water can be chilled to its freezing point in different ways. And, yes, I believe this is consistent with Rand’s view of causality. Causality applies to the actions of entities. But it doesn’t mean that entities must cause themselves to act. It means that they act in a particular way to a particular force. Whether that force comes from within or without depends on the action in question. The force that turns water into ice originates from without, from external factors. If you stop chilling water in your freezer, it will stop turning into ice.

I am not sure what you mean when you say causality “applies” to the acction of entities. Causality is identity “applied” to action. 

17

8 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

In order to avoid rationalism and floating abstractions, one should ground the validity of concepts in perception not simply in some kind of congruence with other concepts.  

So in a sense the concept arbitrary is evaluative of ideas in view of knowledge and ultimately logic as applied to perception, whereas incoherence is a somewhat lesser standard of “coherence” with other ideas.  The concept of coherence is not self inoculating if one’s body of concepts is not correct… one cannot for example, discover that a floating abstraction is invalid by seeing whether it coheres with other floating abstractions.  Because the evaluation of arbitrary has at its core the necessity of evaluation in view ultimately of percepts, it consciously keeps the evaluation grounded in reality.

 

I simply mean “illogical” when I am speaking of coherence. 

8 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

In the final analysis an arbitrary claim can be (arbitrarily made) to be coherent with all of knowledge and reality.  Someone says there exists an invisible utterly undetectable spaghetti monster having no interaction with our universe except that it converses privately to the mind of that person.  All your knowledge is derived from perception, that you cannot know of this monster from perception is completely coherent with the (arbitrary) idea that it only converses mentally with this person.  That you cannot ever observe any evidence for the existence of the monster is also completely (arbitrarily) coherent with its non interaction with the rest of the universe.  Perhaps this someone knowing how you think would even say (quite arbitrarily) that it is in the particular nature and identity of the thing and the rest of the universe, of its and his particular consciousnesses that there is this strange link between them… action according to their unique natures.. which gives rise to the surprising result.   What he has done is arbitrarily claimed something with the same evidentiary footprint of nothing at all… i.e. his claim of its existence produces the same observable effect as would its non existence.  This person only “wins” when you accept that there is an even playing field here, that you have the onus to prove the non existence of the (arbitrarily coherent) idea without recourse to observable effects.

The mere fact that the idea has no perceptual evidence to back it up, and by definition could not ever be proved or disproved by any observation, is sufficient for you to call it arbitrary and invalid… and holding he who asserts it to the onus of proof by some evidence.

 

I keep wondering if we disagree. I think I think I agree with you entirely here. lol. I don’t see how there is a disconnect between my point and what you are saying. 

18

10 hours ago, Veritas said:

I simply mean “illogical” when I am speaking of coherence. 

I keep wondering if we disagree. I think I think I agree with you entirely here. lol. I don’t see how there is a disconnect between my point and what you are saying. 

There is a difference between a logical only evaluation of ideas as amongst themselves and an evaluation of an idea all the way down to percepts.  This difference between evaluation of “incoherent” and “arbitrary” is what you asked me to explore.

As for the issue of proving God doesn’t exist, disagreement depends on whether you see that you cannot prove the non existence of an arbitrarily claimed thing, and that the onus is on he who asserts the positive.

19

On 5/24/2019 at 10:11 AM, Veritas said:

A true miracle would be to turn water into wine.

I’ll try a different approach. In the original post, your example of a miracle is turning water into wine. To me, this means that in one moment you have a cup of water, and in the next moment, by some miracle, that cup contains wine. Never do you have a cup filled with both water and wine at the same time. Before the change, there is only water. And after the change, there is only wine. Yet, a few sentences later, you say:

On 5/24/2019 at 10:11 AM, Veritas said:

Water cannot be water and also wine at the same time according to its identity.

It seems that you’re talking about a different miracle. The first turns water into wine. The second turns water into waterwine, where the cup is filled with both water and wine at the same time.

So which miracle do you mean? Because you seem to be using the second to invalidate the first. But nobody actually argues for the second.

20

4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

There is a difference between a logical only evaluation of ideas as amongst themselves and an evaluation of an idea all the way down to percepts.  This difference between evaluation of “incoherent” and “arbitrary” is what you asked me to explore.

As for the issue of proving God doesn’t exist, disagreement depends on whether you see that you cannot prove the non existence of an arbitrarily claimed thing, and that the onus is on he who asserts the positive.

Ok. I see. So what you are saying is coherence simply applies to arguments in and of themselves and arbitrary has to do with what can  ultimately be perceived?