An argument that disproves God possibly existing?

[Mystic]

Something that may lead me to Atheism is the following argument:

Infinite greatness is not possible for beings that come to exist after not existing.
The greatest type of praise/value is that which is earned.
Eternal praise/value is not earned.
Therefore praise/value that is finite is greater then infinite praise that is not earned.
Since finite praise earned is greater then eternal praise not earned, there cannot possible be eternal being that is greater then all finite beings.
God is defined to be eternal and greatest possible being, and is therefore impossible to exist.

Counter argument:

How do you objectively know earned praise is greater then non-earned praised if there is no ultimate basis to praise?

I don't know the answer, but I feel it's intuitive the more you think about it, that earned praise is greater then non-earned praise.

[Darkstar]

Something that may lead me to Atheism is the following argument:

Infinite greatness is not possible for beings that come to exist after not existing.
The greatest type of praise/value is that which is earned.
Eternal praise/value is not earned.
Therefore praise/value that is finite is greater then infinite praise that is not earned.
Since finite praise earned is greater then eternal praise not earned, there cannot possible be an infinite eternal praised being.


Counter argument:

How do you objectively know earned praise is greater then non-earned praised if there is no ultimate basis to praise?

I don't know the answer, but I feel it's intuitive the more you think about it, that earned praised is greater then non-earned praised.

http://www.webworldarticles.com/e/a/titl...ed-Praise/
I think that earned praise is greater than unearned, and you are right that it is intuitive, but it depends on what you mean by 'objectively superior'. There are studies that show that unearned praise can be detrimental, but maybe not in the way you are suggesting, in that it has less value because there is no purpose to it.

In terms of god 'earning' ultimate praise, it would depend on what you classify as earned. You make the point that if god put forth no effort to achieve omnipotence, then this is not praiseworthy. But, did he put forth effort to achieve benevolence (and is he even benevolent, as some religions suggest he is not, but you already agree with me that those particular versions of god are innacurate).

If god always existed, then he would always be eternal (as time is not defined as having a beginning, so he would have to exist for an infinite period of time to reach any definable point). If he has always been eternal, he has always been omnipotent. It can be reasonably assumed that if he is omnipotent, he is also capable of omnisence, and being omnipresent. However, does this make him perfect, or simply infinitely powerful? If absolute perfection (morals included) is a requirement for god, then he is not praiseworthy in that respect, or at least the praise given to him is somewhat less valuable in a certain sense. If benevolence is not an initial condition of god, then the responsible use of his power is praiseworthy. However, how do we know god is benevolent? We may not see him in our daily lives because he is apathtic, or he could be doing good/bad things under conver of natural events. Now, I personally consider these possibilities (apathy, good and bad) to be highly unlikely as I do not believe in god, but these three things are not technically impossible. It is simply that no emperical evidence supports them.

The bottom line: If god is inherently moral, then he is not praiseworthy in the respect you indicate. If god is fully capable of doing evil, but chooses to do good instead, then he is.

[Mystic]

It also shows that eternal unchanging beings cannot be worshipped, since limited praise that is earned is always greater then their praise.

This doesn't mean there can't be gods, it also doesn't disprove a soul and metaphysical reality or after life.

Perhaps what is still proven by the moral argument is that there is an objective perceiver that is absolute and correct perceiver to all possible levels of greatness/praise, but it shows it's not "God" or ultimately great.

[Anomalocaris]

Something that may lead me to Atheism is the following argument:

Infinite greatness is not possible for beings that come to exist after not existing.
The greatest type of praise/value is that which is earned.
Eternal praise/value is not earned.
Therefore praise/value that is finite is greater then infinite praise that is not earned.
Since finite praise earned is greater then eternal praise not earned, there cannot possible be eternal being that is greater then all finite beings.
God is defined to be eternal and greatest possible being, and is therefore impossible to exist.

Counter argument:

How do you objectively know earned praise is greater then non-earned praised if there is no ultimate basis to praise?

I don't know the answer, but I feel it's intuitive the more you think about it, that earned praise is greater then non-earned praise.

"Infinite greatness"??

A concept has to be sensible to be evaluated. Putting two words together do not a sensible concept make.

Making practical things contingent upon the outcome of a churlish demand for evaluation of a concept that is utterly unfit to be evaluated makes you an irreparably confused man.

[Mystic]

In terms of god 'earning' ultimate praise, it would depend on what you classify as earned. You make the point that if god put forth no effort to achieve omnipotence, then this is not praiseworthy. But, did he put forth effort to achieve benevolence (and is he even benevolent, as some religions suggest he is not, but you already agree with me that those particular versions of god are innacurate).

Hmm...you bring a good point.

God is defined to be unchanging. If you define him that he did change and earned his God-hood, then this argument fails.

But this means it was possible for him to be evil. And also means there should've been a significant struggle between evil and good.

In this sense, how do we know for sure God made the right decision?

[Darkstar]

It also shows that eternal unchanging beings cannot be worshipped, since limited praise that is earned is always greater then their praise.

This doesn't mean there can't be gods, it also doesn't disprove a soul and metaphysical reality or after life.

Perhaps what is still proven by the moral argument is that there is an objective perceiver that is absolute and correct perceiver to all possible levels of greatness/praise, but it shows it's not "God" or ultimately great.

I personally think that god exiting is statistically impossible, however, there might be a pseudo-god (which I still consider extremely unlikely) that is not perfect, but appears perfect from the viewpoint of humans. I cannot imagine a perfect being existing, but maybe a very powerful one could. It really depends on how you define god.

AS for the soul, what is it, and where does it originate? Is the soul linked to any particular religion, or set of religions, and if so how do they know it is real if their doctrine is false? Life after death and the soul can't really be disproven in the way they are defined. The soul has long been seen as the 'spark' of life, so to speak. Whether or not this is true is another story. As for life after death, I do not see how this could exist in the absense of a soul, and am still unsure of it even if the soul is assumed.

Perhaps you mean something a little less specific than heaven, such as perhaps simply the disembodiment of the soul. But that brings up another question, where does the soul come from? You have no memories of events prior to your birth, so the soul either doesn't store memories, or it was created at birth. Does it dissipate at death? (assuming that it exists) In some ways, a non-religious theism can be as problematic as a religious one in that you have no reference material to provide answers to these questions, albiet unreliable ones, which actually goes to show how many of the 'truths' in holy books are in fact not self-evident as they sometimes declare.

---

Hmm...you bring a good point.

God is defined to be unchanging. If you define him that he did change and earned his God-hood, then this argument fails.

But this means it was possible for him to be evil. And also means there should've been a significant struggle between evil and good.

In this sense, how do we know for sure God made the right decision?

Well, we don't Religious theists often defend the obviously immoral actions of their particular god by citing the assumption of moral perfection as though it were a fact. (Truth be told, I do not think the bible even claims Yahweh is omnibenevolent, or even hints at it, as it is abviously untrue). Is the fact that we are not currently enslaved by god proof that he has at least some good? If we assume all religions are incorrect (not exactly a leap of faith) then the manipulative gods that created said religions are suddenly out of the picture.

[Mystic]

Well the classical intuition is that God preceded time. In fact, infinite time in the past doesn't make sense. If God was to earn and "ascend" to divinity, he would have to change, which would require time. Also, one decision is hardly of any value.

Everyone originally wants to be good, but we are faced with challenges. We have to be tested by justice, will act according to our self interest. There has to be desires that go against the greater nobler desire.

But it's not like God for example is tested if he would be faithful to a wife or husband. Or that he has to struggle to learn. Or that he has to pefer helping others to helping himself.

His decision is rather simple and no brainer. And because he would know that peace lies in being good, if we assume he has knowledge of good, then it would be a no brain decision without any struggle.

That has significantly less value then the praise many humans go through.

Therefore it seems God in the sense of ultimately great cannot be earned in reality nor can have always been.

[Darkstar]

But it's not like God for example is tested if he would be faithful to a wife or husband. Or that he has to struggle to learn. Or that he has to pefer helping others to helping himself.

His decision is rather simple and no brainer. And because he would know that peace lies in being good, if we assume he has knowledge of good, then it would be a no brain decision without any struggle.

That has significantly less value then the praise many humans go through.

Therefore it seems God in the sense of ultimately great cannot be earned in reality nor can have always been.

Well, the descision I see god making is whether he wants to enslave us or not. If he is sadistic, he might create things just to kill them. However, we still exist, so that must not be the case here. HOwever, the possibility of him being apathetic is still open. Also, is god necessarily unchanging? He is defined as such by many religions, but I am not sure if this is an assumption that can be made so easily.

[Mystic]

But it's not like God for example is tested if he would be faithful to a wife or husband. Or that he has to struggle to learn. Or that he has to pefer helping others to helping himself.

His decision is rather simple and no brainer. And because he would know that peace lies in being good, if we assume he has knowledge of good, then it would be a no brain decision without any struggle.

That has significantly less value then the praise many humans go through.

Therefore it seems God in the sense of ultimately great cannot be earned in reality nor can have always been.

Well, the descision I see god making is whether he wants to enslave us or not. If he is sadistic, he might create things just to kill them. However, we still exist, so that must not be the case here. HOwever, the possibility of him being apathetic is still open. Also, is god necessarily unchanging? He is defined as such by many religions, but I am not sure if this is an assumption that can be made so easily.

Well what I'm saying if he has power to be good and at peace, and this power is super strong and so is his sense of morality, and there is really nothing to go in the way of that, then is the decision really that valuable?

We humans have to get a strong belief in morals, and sometimes due to various factors, we ignore morals. It's a struggle really.

The struggle in the human experience is there because we simply can't "will" without whatever force we please.

We earn value when we push ourselves and struggle against laziness for example.

But is the case of an absolute being? A powerful being.

Moreover, the concept of oneness of God's Names is that for his attributes to be perfect, they must be ultimate, which can only be ultimate existence. But if he was to ascend to that, it would mean he wasn't simply and one.

So all the intuitions I have about God from a child till now, seem to be off.

He is not infallible, but must chose. Against my orignal concept.

He wasn't orginally simple and one with perfect attributes, but had to ascend and change to that, after being something more complex and multiplicity existing in him.

It seems however the platonic concept of ultimate praise/beauty/value always existing and the foundation of our perception (the cave analogy) is not true.

At most, the platonic argument can be is that there is ultimate perception to all possible levels of value, beauty, praise.

[Cyberman]

My head hurts.

---

---