Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Have I proven that God does not exist?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Have I proven that God does not exist?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect, he must be an absolutely perfect economist, and yet when we see things such as the Haiti earthquake, I cannot see how this disaster could possibly be beneficial -and by beneficial, I mean it in an economic sense, as in, although of course there will be some benefits to having a disaster, the problems it causes are much greater. So therefore he is not perfect. And I don't mean 'perfect' in any kind of subjective way, I mean it in a totally economic and existential sense, the original sense of the word, as in, he is flawless.

So then you could say, well maybe he does exist, but perhaps he just isn't perfect. And I can't help but think, how can he not be perfect?

Like the universe and it's laws (which are existentially perfect), he is the absolute, he created himself, it would be implausible for him not to be perfect. He is a being of extreme power, he can do what ever he wants, so how could he not have created himself to be perfect?

How could he have any imperfections, when there was nothing to imperfect him?

And you could argue that maybe he no longer has control over Earth, but that would also mean he is not perfect, for there must be a fault in him to explain why he has no longer got control or cannot fight off satan.

You could argue that these things are sent to test us, but test us for what? Surely the horror that disasters such the Haiti earthquakes, the tsunami, World War 1 and 2, 9/11, and thousands of others are not worth it just to test us.

So does this theory prove that God does not exist? Or am I missing something?

@ArthBH,

ArthBH;125254 wrote:

I cannot see how this disaster could possibly be beneficial.

you failed to demonstrate your omniscience. If you are omniscient then OK, however, if the possibility exists that you are not all-knowing then explain to me why you finding or not finding something to be beneficial matters? If you couldn't see how the earth could be round would that mean it's not?

@ArthBH,

ArthBH;125254 wrote:

Have I proven that God does not exist?

No.

See: Thomas Aquinas.

@ArthBH,

ArthBH;125254 wrote:

If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect, he must be an absolutely perfect economist, and yet when we see things such as the Haiti earthquake, I cannot see how this disaster could possibly be beneficial -and by beneficial, I mean it in an economic sense, as in, although of course there will be some benefits to having a disaster, the problems it causes are much greater.

Maybe it was designed with a perfect flaw? Or maybe this is perfect for what the point of it is? For example, if you want to create an environment where the inhabitants face circumstances that are beyond their control with both positive and negative results, then by all means a disaster would be perfect. In other words, perfect is relative to what your intention is.

ArthBH;125254 wrote:

So then you could say, well maybe he does exist, but perhaps he just isn't perfect. And I can't help but think, how can he not be perfect?

More than likely god doesn't exist. Imagine, if there was a universe that where there was no god, what would it be like? Probably like ours.

ArthBH;125254 wrote:

Like the universe and it's laws (which are existentially perfect), he is the absolute, he created himself, it would be implausible for him not to be perfect. He is a being of extreme power, he can do what ever he wants, so how could he not have created himself to be perfect?

Maybe he destroyed himself? I mean if you had the power to do anything, couldn't god kill god? Or is that something god can't do? Maybe god destroyed himself to create the universe?

ArthBH;125254 wrote:

And you could argue that maybe he no longer has control over Earth, but that would also mean he is not perfect, for there must be a fault in him to explain why he has no longer got control or cannot fight off satan.

Maybe it was an attempt to prove something? God handed Satan temporary control to see how many would still follow the old ways? I don't believe any of it, but there are these possibilities.

@Krumple,

This argument assumes you to be God. because to know absolutly that something is not perfect, you must first know what perfection is.

@GoshisDead,

Am I missing something or does this have no business being in the ethics forum?

@Krumple,

Krumple;125284 wrote:

Maybe he destroyed himself? I mean if you had the power to do anything, couldn't god kill god? Or is that something god can't do? Maybe god destroyed himself to create the universe?

Gods omnipotentcy means simply that he can do all things which are metaphysically possible.

The OP's objections to God will not convince any theist. They will simply say to you that God has created the best of all possible worlds. Since he is perfect he couldn't have done any differently. To refute God's existence you're going to have to either refute all of the major proofs for God's existence (The ontological and cosmological) or reject metaphysics.

@amist,

amist;125864 wrote:

Gods omnipotentcy means simply that he can do all things which are metaphysically possible.

The OP's objections to God will not convince any theist. They will simply say to you that God has created the best of all possible worlds. Since he is perfect he couldn't have done any differently. To refute God's existence you're going to have to either refute all of the major proofs for God's existence (The ontological and cosmological) or reject metaphysics.

I have refuted the cosmological argument. But those who frequent the topic refuse to acknowledge that the argument has flaws. It stands to reason that for a believer reasoning isn't required and if it is it is not utilized. Instead just vague hunches suffice any time a metaphysical discussion is concerned. They use reasoning only up to the point of stating the concept but everything that follows abandons it.

@ArthBH,

I wasn't arguing for the validity of those two arguments. However they are the two with the greatest semblance of validity in my opinion and I was simply trying to point the op in the right direction.

@amist,

Krumple;125881 wrote:

I have refuted the cosmological argument.

That is quite a feat considering that the 'cosmological argument' is a type of argument, rather than a single particular argument.

@ArthBH,

I think it's assumed we're talking about the most well refined, articulated, and best form of the arguments when we speak about a type of argument in general.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;125920 wrote:

That is quite a feat considering that the 'cosmological argument' is a type of argument, rather than a single particular argument.

I was assuming you would have known what I meant. But if you require clarification, the cosmological argument for the existence of god has been refuted. I even used the cosmological argument to do the refuting.

@ArthBH,

He understands that you're talking about the cosmological argument for the existence of god, many different forms of this argument exist though(Plato's, Aristotle's, Aquinas's etc.).

@Didymos Thomas,

ArthBH,

One thing to note is that the matters of God being omnipotent, omniscient, etc. rest entirely on your conception of God. Is God a meddling God, a causal God, a removed God, etc? Perhaps the most important underlying point may be how relative God actually is, or at least the conception of it at any rate.

What if God were not involved in the affairs of the universe? Aristotle supposed that God was an "unmoved mover" which was a purely actual (paronymous) being that could be nothing else except what it is, the prima substantia which all other substances rely on, the origin first movement (but not of movement itself). God is very much removed from the universe except in the nature of first cause. Much similar to that is Rene Descartes who would say that God set things in motion at creation. I wonder if it could be argued that if things were set at creation, then it is part of a perfect plan to being with.

So on that note, what if God's initial plan incorporated bad elements, would that make it less perfect if it were part of an overall perfect plan? Leibniz would say that the universe is reflected in Monads. Even in that, God created all possible instances in a plurality of monads at the creation of the universe, reflected only in the dominant monad, which itself relied on the principle of pre-established harmony (allows the universe to run without supernatural intervention). God's conception of the universe, time, etc. was perfectly laid out and revealed only in the reflection of the dominant monad.

Suffice to say that God could exist in a world of constant troubles, if anything because we could think of God as something wholly primary.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;125937 wrote:

ArthBH,

One thing to note is that the matters of God being omnipotent, omniscient, etc. rest entirely on your conception of God.

Of course that is true. But what is being argued is that there is nothing which corresponds to that conception of God: the traditional Western conception of God. As for any other conception of God, whether anything corresponds to that has to be argued independently. But it is not an objection to an argument that nothing corresponds to the traditional Western conception of God that something may correspond to a different conception of God, as you seem to think it is.

@ArthBH,

ArthBH;125254 wrote:

If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect, he must be an absolutely perfect economist, and yet when we see things such as the Haiti earthquake, I cannot see how this disaster could possibly be beneficial -and by beneficial, I mean it in an economic sense, as in, although of course there will be some benefits to having a disaster, the problems it causes are much greater. So therefore he is not perfect. And I don't mean 'perfect' in any kind of subjective way, I mean it in a totally economic and existential sense, the original sense of the word, as in, he is flawless.

So then you could say, well maybe he does exist, but perhaps he just isn't perfect. And I can't help but think, how can he not be perfect?

Like the universe and it's laws (which are existentially perfect), he is the absolute, he created himself, it would be implausible for him not to be perfect. He is a being of extreme power, he can do what ever he wants, so how could he not have created himself to be perfect?

How could he have any imperfections, when there was nothing to imperfect him?

And you could argue that maybe he no longer has control over Earth, but that would also mean he is not perfect, for there must be a fault in him to explain why he has no longer got control or cannot fight off satan.

You could argue that these things are sent to test us, but test us for what? Surely the horror that disasters such the Haiti earthquakes, the tsunami, World War 1 and 2, 9/11, and thousands of others are not worth it just to test us.

So does this theory prove that God does not exist? Or am I missing something?

Well for a start YOU haven't proven anything. What you have wrote is something that has been said about a billion times before, and like the vast, vast, majority of the militant anti-religion brigade, I would be very suprised if you had even once came close to having a single original thought in your life. (and such people often have the temerity to call the religious blind followers!)

It IS true in my opinion that
1. an exactly personal god in the way that you or I are personal
+
2. this god being exactly omniscient, and exactly omnipotent, and exactly omnibenevolent
+
3. The existence of evil and suffering

of course doesn't add up, but I don't think that is exactly how most people think of God.

Also may I add an enlightening observation. Isn't it funny how the vast majority of people who think that the idea of suffering precludes the idea of God are the people who have lead sheltered comfortable lives and have never actually experienced the great suffering in the world for themselves, whereas the people in the world who have actually lived, and experienced the great suffering in the world don't see any contradiction between the existence of suffering and the idea of god?

@richard mcnair,

richard_mcnair;125949 wrote:

Also may I add an enlightening observation. Isn't it funny how the vast majority of people who think that the idea of suffering precludes the idea of God are the people who have lead sheltered comfortable lives and have never actually experienced the great suffering in the world for themselves, whereas the people in the world who have actually lived, and experienced the great suffering in the world don't see any contradiction between the existence of suffering and the idea of god?

But that is not true. For instance many Jews who suffered through the Holocaust had their faith shaken, and ceased to believe in God.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;125953 wrote:

But that is not true. For instance many Jews who suffered through the Holocaust had their faith shaken, and ceased to believe in God.

You can find me exceptions, but in general it is true. The majority of jews who survived the holocaust still believed. If the existence of suffering precludes the idea of god, then why didn't they all, or at least a majority of them become atheists? Why does bad things that happen to people in their lives far more usually strengthen their faith rather than abolish it? Why aren't people who come from poor rough tough working class homes all atheists? If some of them went to university perhaps then surrounded by upper middle class people from comfortable backgrounds then suddenly they might become religious like the upper-middle class students? Then later in their life they may suddenly get cancer, and faced with suffering and mortality again, renounce their faith? Why is this the opposite of the actual pattern you usually see?

@richard mcnair,

richard_mcnair;125959 wrote:

You can find me exceptions, but in general it is true. The majority of jews who survived the holocaust still believed. If the existence of suffering precludes the idea of god, then why didn't they all, or at least a majority of them become atheists? Why does bad things that happen to people in their lives far more usually strengthen their faith rather than abolish it? Why aren't people who come from poor rough tough working class homes all atheists? If some of them went to university perhaps then surrounded by upper middle class people from comfortable backgrounds then suddenly they might become religious like the upper-middle class students? Then later in their life they may suddenly get cancer, and faced with suffering and mortality again, renounce their faith? Why is this the opposite of the actual pattern you usually see?

Could you mention how you know that "in general it is true"?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;125962 wrote:

Could you mention how you know that "in general it is true"?

What do you mean? I've not been living on mars for the whole of my life, and I've met many different people from different background, and I think, like the majority of people I know what sort of people believe what.

Are you trying to say that what I have said is wrong, and that the people in the world who have actually experienced the suffering aren't usually the religious ones, whereas the people in the world who have merely heard about, or read about the suffering in the world, but have never actually experienced it aren't the atheists?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Have I proven that God does not exist?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Have I proven that God does not exist?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know