Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to prove that God doesn't exist. The following is a proof that the existence of God is a logical impossibility.

Assume for the sake of argument that God exists. It follows from the definition of God that God is omnipotent. Being omnipotent, God can do anything. In particular, he can create an immovable object, that is, an object that neither he nor anyone else can ever move. Now assuming that God creates such an immovable object, can he then move it? Either he can or he can't. If he can move it, then the object was not immovable, a contradiction. If he can't move it, then he is not omnipotent, again a contradiction. Thus the hypothesis (i.e., that God exists) leads to a contradiction, and so must be false. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. Q.E.D.
A detailed discussion of the problems associated with a belief in God can be found in the “Religion” chapter of my book Cutting the Gordian Knot: Simple Solutions to Complex Societal Problems, available at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/628871.
Stanley Korn

Views: 330

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

But an immovable object can be moved by God.  "Immovable" means immovable by the rest of us. 

But if the object was movable by God, it wouldn't be immovable: omnipotence fail.

No. Immovable means. Immovable by any means. It it can be moved by any method, then it is movable. 
Otherwise you're falling into the trap of special pleading if you say something is immovable, but only God can move it. Which contradicts the point of it being immovable. 

Yes, but God can do things that the rest of us can't, like move immoveable objects. 

What is this god of which you speak?

Just for the sake of argument. 

Argument about what? What are you defining as god? If I posted about my gezundenflorgen, you'd expect a rough outline of what it was

God the omnipotent creator of the universe, we presume could do anything, including move immoveable objects. 

So we could turn the original argument around to say that there's no such thing as an immoveable object. 

What Simon is trying to say is...such a God transcends these kinds of paradoxes and so these technical problems aren't problems at all. In a very technical sense, an all powerful being can do everything...even the logically impossible. I don't deny that this might be a valid explanation once we've established a long list of other well demonstrated arguments...but we haven't even demonstrated the first (the existence of any supernatural phenomena). So...as it stands now...a god that can transcend paradoxes...is simply a God that followers have given such qualities so that they don't have to rationally explain them and get off scott free when people critique it.

That's true. 

So we could turn the original argument around to say that there's no such thing as an immoveable object.

But then god can't create an immoveable object. Omnipotence fail!

You would seem to be correct. 

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service