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
Stanley Korn

Views: 276

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Pretty hard to argue with this logic.  But rest assured, people who are desperate to maintain their delusion of eternal life wll not be impressed.  The response I hear most often from theists is that God is not constrained by logic; i.e.,God can do anything because he is God.  Period.

I would not bet the farm on that argument. You're venturing on a unfalsifiable quest. And Occam's razor could be used if you had an answer to the anthropic principle. Many believe it is the multiverse. But even that satisfying Occam's Razor is disputable.

This is a semantic paradox.

The answer is simple. If you rely on a definition of 'omnipotence' to define your arguement (your 'omnipotent god') then you set about demonstrating that the definition of 'omnipotence' you used to set up the arguement is impossible then all you have done is disallowed the formulation of your own question.

What you have done is proved your question is wrong.

Similar thoughts here. It doesn't make sense from the start to assume any one definition of God is correct. Even the word "immovable" is subject to mortal vs divine context, which people often conflate without realizing.

Observations in science can logically support *probable* explanations, while leaving open the possibility of being disproved by further observation. Humans declaring that God can move the immovable is just one convenient way to avoid having to prove or disprove one's personal concept of God.

@Zenith - then what definition of "omnipotence" could we use in which this question is not "proved wrong" or "disallowed"? 

1) The property is not falsifiable via experiment.

IE: There is no valid test you can come up with and have god step in and say, OK, I am ready to be see if he can do it or not.

2) The property is ONE assumed property of god...there are other gods, and even other descriptions of particular gods, such as the Christian version vs the Jewish version, and so forth. There is no way to prove THIS property applies to a particular entity.

3) One COULD argue that EVIDENCE, in the bible, in Genesis, indicates THAT PARTICULAR god, is NOT omnipotent.

Consider having an infinite amount of power, as a given in this scenario.

If you have an infinite amount of power, you cannot use it up.

God "rested" after his labors in Genesis.

This "rest" was clearly meant to be a recovery period, as it was SPECIFICALLY used to get PEOPLE to also rest on that day (Or the one after for Testament 2.0, etc).

So, if god needed to rest, he was not working with an infinite amount of power, he had to rest and replenish it.

So, if Genesis was TRUE, then, god is not omnipotent.


On the other hand, if Genesis is FALSE, no supernatural entity created time space and matter, etc...and there was no original sin, etc.

So, overall, it looks like mighty mouse and superman would have a heck of a brawl, but, I think I'd go with superman....unless the super rodent was stashing a cache of kryptonite.


@ Simon Paynton

It is a difficult paradox, but that is why it is a paradox and has been for centuries. I first came across it reading the Philosophy of Avveroes, he asked 'Can god deny himself?', it's a similar paradox.

The problem is in the way the question is structured. Like the immovable object being hit by an unstoppable force, what will happen? Well either the force stops or the object moves, or possibly both but the answer proves the question wrong, it's a paradox created by how we structure the question.

If you want to prove god is not omnipotent then you need to determine what you mean by the reality of omnipotency, i.e. you cannot use 'omnipotent' if it is impossible as this disallows the question.

Which was my point...if the task is a paradox, it doesn't exist as a performable task.

Its merely a combination of words which have a meaning but no expression of an existing concept or object, etc.

"Make an invisible purple unicorn"

Say "I am lying to you right now" as a true statement...

and so forth.

These become even more numerous when the givens are further modified, such as when omni prefixes are added, as that is even more likely to produce a paradox.

So, if an all powerful being COULD exist, that could "do anything", even it would not be able to things that do not allow them to be done due to their paradoxical nature, etc.

So, while to me, logically, the existence of an all powerful anything is not something to expect...especially when it had to exist before time existed (WHEN did it exist then?), that it could create time and space, about the same as a paradox anyway.

TO ME at least, time would involve a when...and, there had to be a "when" god created, if that were on a Wednesday at 12 noon, well, what time was it, a second before that, when time had not yet been created?



To comment on the immovable object

I can do both. that's how awesome my god powers are.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service