Tuesday, October 24, 2006

A disproof of God?

In the spirit of Alvin Plantinga, who claims that God is a necessary being, I present a short disproof of God.

1) God is a necessary being and exists in all logically possible worlds.

2) God is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent

3) Therefore , suppose a omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being exists in all possible worlds

4) Many logically possible worlds contain large amounts of suffering with no redeeming features.

5) Therefore these logically possible worlds do not contain a being who would alleviate pointless suffering

6) Therefore there are logically possible worlds that do not contain an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being.

7) But this contradicts 3, showing that there is no necessary omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being

18 Comments:

Blogger FreezBee said...

Ok, I take your argumentation to imply that if God is necessary, then God cannot be "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent".

Now, the way I understand apologetics (and I admit, I might not have understood anything of it at all), God is omnibenevolent by necessary definition: if God did it, it is good, completely independent of human sentiments.

How does your disproof work, if we remove "benevolent" from the necessary attributes of God?

6:56 AM  
Blogger Steven Carr said...

If God is not omnibenevolent, then the argument from evil fails.

2:21 AM  
Blogger Lara said...

Swinburne has an interesting line on the problem of evil - that as long as good outweighs evil in the end (i.e. perhaps in a future life) then the evil is allowed.

From a Christian perspective you also have the argument that much suffering occurs because both mankind and creation are fallen and under a curse - a curse that will be fully reversed when Jesus Christ returns.

I don't find that the problem of evil argument has much weight, at least not for Christianity. To me, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of Christian theology.

5:43 PM  
Blogger Steven Carr said...

Why would a good God curse people?

Possibly because God delights in destroying people?

Deuteronomy 28:63 Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you.

A God who finds pleasure in destroying people is not an infinitely loving God.

'Swinburne has an interesting line on the problem of evil - that as long as good outweighs evil in the end (i.e. perhaps in a future life) then the evil is allowed.'

Is that why Swinburne thinks it is morally correct to allow abortion?

3:07 AM  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Of course, some believers claim that god is NOT omni-benevolent and I suppose that the christian god cannot be omni-benevolent if, as part of his "god duty", it is to deny some people access to heaven.

5:49 AM  
Blogger Ab Truth said...

what do all possible worlds have to do with anything?

THIS world has an enormous amount of pointless suffering...

and what does the amount have to do with it?? any pointless suffering at all is against Gods nature ergo the point of Christianity that we need a redeemer to rectify things to how they were intended...

if you were to go the route of an infinite amount of universes your arguement still wouldnt hold as (your definition) God is omnisient and omnipotent and if it is his will he (as the creator of all possible universes) is capable of creating all universes without pointless pain if he so desires... an infinite amount of universes created by one being does not have the same problems in logic as an infinite amount of universes without God.


No offence Steve but this arguement is so full of logical holes i could reverse a mack truck through it blindfolded...

Assuming you were attacking the ontological arguement for the existence of God.........

the ontological arguement for the existence of God states

A. If God exists his existence is necessary
B. If God doesnt exist then his existence is impossible
C. God existence is possible
D. Therefore God exists

now there is only one weakness where someone can plausibly deny the logic of this arguement in my mind and that is with proposition C. but you will have to show that his existence is impossible

9:47 PM  
Blogger Steven Carr said...

'A. If God exists his existence is necessary
B. If God doesnt exist then his existence is impossible
C. God existence is possible
D. Therefore God exists'

I just define a necessary unicorn - nunicorn, and the same argument follows to show that a nunicorn exists.

So your argument also proves that anything defined as necessary must exist, a necessary leprechaun, a necessary unicorn etc.

Still, at least you agree that God's nature is such that he does not allow universes with pointlessn suffering to exist.

And you agree that this universe has pointless suffering.

Therefore, God does not exist.

And, of course, it is impossible for God to recify things to how they were intended.

If 5 years ago, a baby was tortured to death, God cannot change that. It has already happened. The past cannot be rectified to what was intended.

10:22 PM  
Blogger Ab Truth said...

Steve Steve Steve

do you really think that that rejoinder hasn't been flogged to death...

look very closely at the logic...

if a unicorn exists, the universe by definition of its ontological being is not dependent on that unicorns existence... but ...

'if' God exists then he is the creator of all matter by his own definition and nothing could exist without him

have another go at it steve... my arguement is still looking pretty good

Yes pointless suffering exists but this does not disprove God but rather the fact that we have free will to go against what we know intuitively to be morally good and right.

I have never postulated that past wrongs needed to be undone for things to be put right but another aspect of God's character is his justice which he holds to its maximal degree.....

you said
"Still, at least you agree that God's nature is such that he does not allow universes with pointlessn suffering to exist."

no i don't agree... where did i say that?

2:28 PM  
Blogger Steven Carr said...

Your last post was a total non sequitor.

Your 'proof' of God also proves that a necessary unicorn exists.

The fact that a unicorn is not God is irrelevant.

And you do seem to agree that God does nothing about pointless suffering, although he tells other people to do something about it.

Jesus had something to say about preaching one thing, and doing another , didn't he?

10:47 PM  
Blogger Frank Walton said...

That's a pretty weak argument against God.

11:42 AM  
Blogger Ab Truth said...

steve

i am starting to think that english is not your first language

"Your 'proof' of God also proves that a necessary unicorn exists.

The fact that a unicorn is not God is irrelevant."

i'll say this simply

if God actually exists then God created everything and we would be dependent upon him for our own existence in the first place... therefore God is would be necessary

if a 'necessary unicorn' were to exist... what would make it necessary???

if the 'necessary unicorn' actually created everything and we were dependent on it for our existence then you have just proven Gods existence but renamed it the 'necessary unicorn'

God is his title not his name...

so much for the elementary logic


you say

"And you do seem to agree that God does nothing about pointless suffering, although he tells other people to do something about it.

Jesus had something to say about preaching one thing, and doing another , didn't he?"

now this is a non sequitor... bordering on equivocation

God says 'i created everything good and perfect and you guys crapped on it.. its not my fault... you guys have (ab)used your freewill and now look at the mess your in... well you can't fix it so i'll send my son and he will fix it for you if, and only if, you will let him rescue you...'

simple really

2:28 AM  
Blogger Steven Carr said...

If a necessary unicorn exists, what would make it necessary?

Being necessary would make it necessary.

Ab Truth's proof of God also proves that a necessary unicorn exists.

And God clearly intended the world to be the way it is now. That is the world that he himself chose to create.

He could have chosen to create a world full of beings with free will that he knew in advance would never choose evil.

Instead, he created Satan and then passed by on the other side when Satan did evil.

5:43 AM  
Blogger Ab Truth said...

now your not even making sense..

being necessary is not the reason something is necessary...

you must have a reason for it to be necessary... ie if your magical necessary unicorn was responsible for all other matter to exist so that there was anything to comprehend it and ask the question....??? then you have the basis for a reason


"Ab Truth's proof of God also proves that a necessary unicorn exists."

only if you are saying that the unicorn is God...

"And God clearly intended the world to be the way it is now. That is the world that he himself chose to create."

Christians would say that he didn't intend for evil but realised it was a possibility as a result of free will...

"He could have chosen to create a world full of beings with free will that he knew in advance would never choose evil."

So this free will you speak of... what if i wanted to choose evil.. would i be free to choose it...

you may as well try and concieve of a square circle

3:49 PM  
Blogger Steven Carr said...

Ab Truth is now claiming that there is a 'reason' why something is necessary - in other words a necessary being is contingent upon the existence of this reason....

This is just incoherent.

By definition of 'necessary', it is not contingent upon the existence of anything else.

His proof of a 'necessary' god can also be used to prove that a necessary unicorn exists.

You just switch the word unicorn for God.

And he claims that God did not intend this world to be created.

If God intended to create a different world, why did he not create that one instead? God knew exactly what world he was going to create. He knew exactly what was going to happen.

If I create something, knowing exactly what it is that is being created , in every detail, how can I claim that I did not intend to create that which was created?

10:16 PM  
Blogger Ab Truth said...

You say

"Ab Truth is now claiming that there is a 'reason' why something is necessary - in other words a necessary being is contingent upon the existence of this reason...."

yes there is a reason why something is necessary... the being is not dependant on the reason, though the reason is dependant on the being.

Your definition of necessary “Being necessary would make it necessary.”
And “By definition of 'necessary', it is not contingent upon the existence of anything else.”

I would really love you to expand on these definitions… as for me I’ll go by the dictionary

necessary
• adjective 1 required to be done, achieved, or present; needed. 2 that must be; inevitable: a necessary result.
• noun 1 (necessaries) the basic requirements of life, such as food and warmth. 2 (the necessary) informal the action, item, or money required.
— ORIGIN Latin necessarius, from necesse ‘be needful’.
You say

"By definition of 'necessary', it is not contingent upon the existence of anything else.

His proof of a 'necessary' god can also be used to prove that a necessary unicorn exists.

You just switch the word unicorn for God."



i did switch because thats what your logic implied... as i said "God" is a title not a name... this is an important point... you can call God the 'necessary purple monkey dishwasher' if you want but that being would still hold the position of God.


"If God intended to create a different world, why did he not create that one instead? God knew exactly what world he was going to create. He knew exactly what was going to happen."

Don't be so openly daft... he created the world he wanted but he also allowed that world to be corrupted by giving us free will.. which of course happened


PS.. you can refer to me directly if you want, as i don't really think there is anyone else here apart from you and me

9:06 PM  
Blogger Darcy said...

Steve,
Your argument breaks down when you say that God could have created a universe with beings with free will where he knew they would not choose evil? This is self defeating, if he created them to not ever have the option of choosing evil, it is not free will.

I will simply quote Alvin Plantinga's free will defense as an argument for this, it goes like so;
1.Creatures who are free cannot be causally determined to do what is only right.
2.Thus, if God creates creatures who are significantly free, he cannot causally determine them to what is right.
3.Thus, if God creates creatures who are significantly free, he must create creatures who are capable of moral evil.
4.Thus if God creates a world containing creatures who are significantly free, it will contain creatures who are capable of moral evil.
5.If God creates a world containing creatures who are capable of moral evil, he cannot then guarantee that there will not be evil in the world.
6.Thus, if God creates a world containing creatures who are significantly free, He cannot guarantee that there will not be evil that world.
7.A world containing creatures who are significantly free is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.
8.Thus, God has good reason to create a world containing creatures who are significantly free.
9.Thus, God has good reason to create a world, which He cannot guarantee will not contain evil.

There is no possible way that a necessary God could create beings with free will and guarantee an absence of evil. What this tells me is that the problem of evil is not contradictory of God, but rather can be used as evidence for his benevolence.

http://darcylbell.blogspot.com/

12:28 PM  
Blogger Steven Carr said...

Oh dear...

So God cannot create creatures with free will that he knows will never choose evil...

So Christians themselves smash apart the idea that Heaven is full of angels that God knows will never choose evil.

For some reason, this god has now lost his omniscience and does not know what beings will do when he creates them....

Even Plantinga himself emailed me to say that his (alleged) god created beings with free will that never choose evil.

So even Plantinga recognises the absurdity of your claim that this (alleged) god cannot create beings with free will that never choose evil.

1:37 PM  
Blogger H.S.Pal said...

I want to put this question to those who do not believe that there is a God, and hope to get an answer:
Why should a man-created, imaginary God have to be spaceless, timeless? To satisfy what basic needs of man was he one day compelled to create a God of his own with these particular attributes?

11:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home