There is no god or gods!

[FallentoReason]

You ask for the impossible OP, for God is necessarily possible.

To prove something's non-existence can be rather simple (despite this wild claim that says proving the negative is impossible). You prove its impossibility. For instance, I can prove, with near certainty, there is no elephant in my house because it is impossible given the space available and what otherwise exists therein.

Unfortunately, God cannot be shown impossible. Something is only impossible if its existence is contradictory with something. Contradictions exist because of the conflict of limits (e.g. an elephant's physical existence entails it is limited spaciotemporally and can be contradicted by the existence of some other physical thing in its place). God (of the philosophers), by definition is the I AM or the infinite being. Infinite means to lack limits, therefore God cannot admit of contradiction, and therefore is necessarily possible.

Welcome Dranu.

I agree with what you say about being able to prove something doesn't exist at times. It's the same for the creation account, which in a lot of ways is like your elephant example. A literal Genesis interpretation doesn't fit into the different areas of science that all point to an old universe.

Anyways, I read your other posts and I saw that you have proof for God. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say! I was just thinking about a Deist-type god on the way home today and maybe you've got something worth looking at.

[IATIA]

To the definition you've provided, omnipotence, omnipresence, & omniscience are internally contradictory propositions therefore any god claiming any of the 3 cannot exist.

I do not disagree. In fact, a god claiming any one of those is contradictory to existence, yet cannot be a god without it.

---

---

I don't think one can easily deny God exists and feel certain about it. I think it's impossible. However the same is not true of a magical pink unicorn creating the universe. I think even if one cannot prove that to be impossible, one can honestly feel certain there is no such thing.

There is several reasons why I feel this is the case. Knowledge of God is similar to me to that of (objective) morality. People can disbelieve in (objective) morality, but they can never be sure it's a delusion. There is something in them telling them it's not a delusion.

The same is true of greatness. We can be all confused about it, we can even think it has no basis, and is a delusion, but we can never feel certain it is a delusion.

Ultimate Great being existing. Ultimate Greatness as the foundation of our own perceptions of greatness, be they twisted from him or very much in line with him, the ultimate moral being being the foundation of our morality be they as clear or clouded they maybe, twisted or in line with him....Perfection truly existing in an objective sense...though we may twisted in our perception of perfection....

No, a human can deny such a thing, can say I don't know, but he will never feel certain of it not existing.

It will always bug him...why? Because deep down inside is a hidden knowledge.

For some that knowledge is so out there, it's impossible for them to doubt. For others, it's buried deep within, so it's impossible for them to believe, but yet they cannot feel certain it doesn't exist.

And if his glory displays eternalness, one can perhaps doubt eternal glory existing, eternal beauty existing, eternal majesty existing, and our souls being created through that eternal glory constantly, emitting existence to us...but it can never be sure such a being doesn't exist. It can never be sure it's own glory and beauty is separate from eternal beauty and glory.

It can be confused, it can feel like "how can I know such a being exists"...but it can never be sure that it doesn't exist.

---

And that is why, really, that no one feels certain that God doesn't exist.

I do. Nothing I have read or heard since the age of reason has prompted anything more than a passing interest in the possibility of a god and that, only in my preteen years. Any interest in a god followed the tooth-faery, easter bunny and santa clause right out the door. No difference from my perspective.

[Dranu]

Particularly with regards to issues related to your claim that non-contradiction implies neccessarily possibility. I do not displute that claim.My problem with it is that "god" is so ill-defined in your argument to render the possiblility of finding contradiction meaningless. However, as the claim of necessary possibility is not currently under dispute, I see no need to belabor the point until the claimed properties of the entitiy are established.

So you do admit that the thing designated by my definition is necessarily possible, just that you don't think I have connected to 'God' in the more colloquial sense, correct? Just trying to understand before proceeding.

What I was asking for was your "proof" of your assertion that you have proof of actual existence.

As the OP says "Debating the existence of god is really for a different thread and not what [we are] looking for here". I agree, and like him would gladly debate it in another thread. Surely its an argument you have heard before, I just think its too easily dismissed without earnest, deep, consistent and logical consideration despite it withstanding every philosopher in the history of mankind... and I think it proves God with more certainty than anything else we can know.

---

Welcome Dranu.

I agree with what you say about being able to prove something doesn't exist at times. It's the same for the creation account, which in a lot of ways is like your elephant example. A literal Genesis interpretation doesn't fit into the different areas of science that all point to an old universe. [/quote] Hey Fallen, ya pretty much, and fortunately in my tradition much of Genesis has not been interpreted literal (at least in the sense of the modern Protestants; but a small blip on the radar of the history of Christendom).

I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say! I was just thinking about a Deist-type god on the way home today and maybe you've got something worth looking at.

I do not think many will be suprised or interested in the argument (the Ontological, without its many erroneous renditions). Most of the greatest gems in the world go unappretiated. So goes the fate of this one despite it never being disproven and providing (as far as I can tell after many hours of advocati diaboli) certain proof for God's existence. I will gladly argue for it though.

---

The OP's question is asking for something impossible right?

How did you come to this conclusion? How can something infinitely greater than the universe need to exist to create the universe, and yet have no creator itself? God is said to be an infinity, he can explain anything because he is everything. And yet despite him being everything, of him we have found nothing... Saying that we 'know' a god would have to be present to create the universe is just god-of-the-gaps.

I'll take that as a 'no' to my question correct? Could you by chance address my argument (you must either challenge the truth of one of its premises or the validity of the logic; these are the ways to argue logically).

Friend, we can definitely get to these points of yours in the process if you use them to refute a premise etc, but first thing first, logical dialogue.

[IATIA]

... and I think it proves God with more certainty than anything else we can know.

Have you started the thread yet? We are waiting with bated breath.

[Darkstar]

Particularly with regards to issues related to your claim that non-contradiction implies neccessarily possibility. I do not displute that claim.My problem with it is that "god" is so ill-defined in your argument to render the possiblility of finding contradiction meaningless. However, as the claim of necessary possibility is not currently under dispute, I see no need to belabor the point until the claimed properties of the entitiy are established.

So you do admit that the thing designated by my definition is necessarily possible, just that you don't think I have connected to 'God' in the more colloquial sense, correct? Just trying to understand before proceeding.

I think he is basically saying that you can arbitrarily define god as anything, so you can't disprove it. If you arbitrarily declare "my god is necessarily possible" we can't dispute that god has just been redefined as necessarily possible, but, we have no reason to trust that definition.

[Dranu]

Have you started the thread yet? We are waiting with bated breath.

Nah, I'm not that interested to, but would gladly join in it if anyone else really wants to (just let me know).

Title it something like 'Why the Oh-so-amazing-wonderful Ontological Argument is Valid and Sound'

[IATIA]

Nah, I'm not that interested to, but would gladly join in it if anyone else really wants to (just let me know).

Title it something like 'Why the Oh-so-amazing-wonderful Ontological Argument is Valid and Sound'

My bold.

I see your point. That argument fails on so many levels that it would be a waste of time.

Let us get back on track. Take "Russell's teapot" for example. I can send a satellite up and verify it's existence or not. A 'true believer' however, will insist that the satellite was in the wrong orbit to observe it or used the wrong equipment. Maybe the satellite was arbitrarily at the same speed? Set the satellite to random bursts of speed to compensate, then the 'true believer' will say the 'teapot' affected the orbital speed to remain undetected. Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Check this

The authorities expect you to simply take at their word the absurd and unfounded story that there is a large mass orbiting the earth. Obviously we are expected to be mere sheep, going along with whatever the Thought Police would tell us. However, when one looks at THE FACTS, in an atmosphere free from bias and academic repression, one sees a very different story.

[KichigaiNeko]

Lucky 100!!

[Zen Badger]

Have you started the thread yet? We are waiting with bated breath.

Nah, I'm not that interested to, but would gladly join in it if anyone else really wants to (just let me know).

Title it something like 'Why the Oh-so-amazing-wonderful Ontological Argument is Valid and Sound'

Possible is not the same as probable laddie.

And whilst it is probable that we can never conclusively disprove the existence of "god" in the form of an intelligent first cause, it is simplicity itself to disprove the existence of the murderous, hateful and idiotic yahweh that you bend your knee to.

[Ben Davis]

To the definition you've provided, omnipotence, omnipresence, & omniscience are internally contradictory propositions therefore any god claiming any of the 3 cannot exist.

I do not disagree. In fact, a god claiming any one of those is contradictory to existence, yet cannot be a god without it.

So if you're just saying that god can't exist, i think I've missed your point.

Also there are many gods with limited powers: think of the Roman, Greek, Norse or Japanese pantheons.