My argument against God(s) & omnipresence

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

God is omnipresent.
Nothing subset of everything.
Nothing only consists of nothing.

* God exists in everything.
* God exists in nothing.
* God doesn't exist.

* God exists in everything.

I am citing one of the properties of God, ie, omnipresence.

* God exists in nothing.

Nothing is a subset of everything. I'm explaining how if something is present in everything then it is present in nothing.

* God doesn't exist.

The only thing that exist in nothing is nothing.
So if God exists in nothing, then, God = Nothing,ie,God doesn't exist.



I welcome any counter arguments, from theists and atheists alike.

[ignoramus]

Sorry, Pooley!
God is beyond space and time.
Where he's from maths works differently...

PS, why are you even trying to disprove an unfalsifiable concept?
I would have said God=woo, woo so far has been proven to not exist, therefore no sky fairies.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nothing subset of everything.

Sorry, but that didn't work when Hegel tried it, and it doesn't work now.

Boru

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Nothing subset of everything.

Sorry, but that didn't work when Hegel tried it, and it doesn't work now.

Boru

A = {a,b}
a subset of A
b subset of A
null set subset of A

Is that wrong?

[Drich]

Why in your definition must omni presence, must God exist outside of the existence He has created?

If God call creation into existence from nothing then, why would he have a presents in nothing? Wouldn't that forego the reason for creation?

[Aegon]

Sorry, but that didn't work when Hegel tried it, and it doesn't work now.

Boru

A = {a,b}
a subset of A
b subset of A
null set subset of A

Is that wrong?

Jesus Christ I hate math logic

[Shadow_Man]

pool the great,

God is omnipresent.
Nothing subset of everything.
Nothing only consists of nothing.

* God exists in everything.
* God exists in nothing.
* God doesn't exist.

If your logic is correct
and
you substitute "universe" for "God"
then
you have disproven the existence of the universe.

Since we observe that the universe exists, there must necessarily be a problem with your logic.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

pool the great,

God is omnipresent.
Nothing subset of everything.
Nothing only consists of nothing.

* God exists in everything.
* God exists in nothing.
* God doesn't exist.

If your logic is correct
and
you substitute "universe" for "God"
then
you have disproven the existence of the universe.

Since we observe that the universe exists, there must necessarily be a problem with your logic.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

Very smart.
Let's start:

Universe is omnipresent. (replacing God as per your request)
We know that universe consists of everything.
So,
Universe is omnipresent =>
Everything is everywhere.

We know that statement is false. Everything is not everywhere,something is everywhere(observation) . So you can't disprove the existence of the universe with my argument. Get it? :-)

[Shadow_Man]

pool,

God is omnipresent.
Nothing subset of everything.
Nothing only consists of nothing.

* God exists in everything.
* God exists in nothing.
* God doesn't exist.

If your logic is correct
and
you substitute "universe" for "God"
then
you have disproven the existence of the universe.

Since we observe that the universe exists, there must necessarily be a problem with your logic.

Very smart.
Let's start:

Universe is omnipresent. (replacing God as per your request)
We know that universe consists of everything.
So,
Universe is omnipresent =>
Everything is everywhere.

We know that statement is false. Everything is not everywhere,something is everywhere(observation) . So you can't disprove the existence of the universe with my argument. Get it? :-)

You seem to have forgotten what your argument is. Here is your argument -

* God exists in everything. (Because He is everywhere. This is you equating everything with everywhere, which you later claim to be false)
* God exists in nothing. (because nothing is a subset of everything)
* God doesn't exist. (because God must therefore be nothing)

Here is your argument with "universe" replacing "God" -

* universe exists in everything. (by definition, though stated clumsily)
* universe exists in nothing. (because nothing is a subset of everything)
* universe doesn't exist. (because universe must therefore be nothing)

The point is that no matter how you define either God or the universe, according to your logic if "nothing" is a subset of it, then it doesn't exist. And what I realized after writing my earlier post was that in the end the problem with your logic is that you are failing to properly apply both the concept of a subset and the concept of the empty set.

If X is a subset of Y, X may be identical to Y, but does not have to be, and typically is not.
The only set with which the empty set is identical is itself, because all other sets actually have elements.

Your argument only asserts the definition of the empty set; that it is a subset of every set. Your argument only eliminates God if it necessitates that the set God {God} is identical to the empty set {}. It fails to do so, and is therefore false.

Regards,
Shadow_Man