100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Rhodnar]

Although this is an 'absolute' proof, it's not a proof that all will be willing to accept.

To be a 'God' a being must be worthy of the title.

To be worthy of the title 'God', a being must be 'truly just'.
The 'truly just' consider all beings to be equal.
Therefore; the 'truly just' have no desire to be looked upon as 'Gods'.

The 'truly just' require no other being to obey or follow them.
The 'truly just' do not manipulate other beings, with punishment and reward.
The 'truly just' do not meddle in the lives of others, for to do so would be unjust.

Whilst it may be comforting to believe that powerful beings who guide you through life and answer your prayers exist, if they do, they're not 'Gods'.

In short, if you are required to obey the edicts of another being in order to receive a reward, it's not a 'God'. You've been duped.

If you actually want a reward for living, become 'truly just'. For becoming 'truly just' is it's own reward, and it's a reward far greater than anything you could ever be promised.

To be worthy of the title 'God', a being must be 'truly just'.
The 'truly just' have no desire to be looked upon as 'Gods'.

p.s.

If 'all powerful' 'truly just' beings do exist, by becoming 'truly just', you'd probably earn the right to become 'all powerful' yourself. That's what I'd do anyway.

https://youtu.be/xCorJG9mubk

Take care, and have fun.

[osgart]

I thought the very same thing before, and it pulled me right out of religion altogether.

since than I have found tons of absolute proofs against religions.

I can say being trapped into the coercion of religious believers since I was young, it was like getting out of jail to find out what true justice is, and how absurd and petty God's are.

[Lacewing]

Makes sense to me!!

I'm guessing that theists won't be able to disprove this argument. They probably won't respond at all -- although I would really like to hear what they have to say that could dispute what you've said.

(I'm also glad you started this topic, because we've not talked about this sort of thing enough. )

[Dubious]

If there is a god - which I find completely absurd - though accepting such temporarily for the sake of argument, IT doesn't have to be anything we ascribe to it, least of all just. It's not any lack of justice which negates the idea for me though most still naively think God and justice are contained as one substance. That to me is as ridiculous as a 3D manifestation of god emerging from the two dimensional pages of the bible.

[thedoc]

Although this is an 'absolute' proof, it's not a proof that all will be willing to accept.

Well at least you are partly correct, everything else is a human condition and there is no reason to expect that God will be bound to human conditions.

[Science Fan]

It is just to punish a child rapist for raping a child. It is just to pay a worker for his effort. It is just for those with greater experience to guide those who are starting out and have little practical knowledge.

Your premises are questionable.

[thedoc]

If 'all powerful' 'truly just' beings do exist, by becoming 'truly just', you'd probably earn the right to become 'all powerful' yourself. That's what I'd do anyway.

That's very Buddhist of you.

[Dontaskme]

Although this is an 'absolute' proof, it's not a proof that all will be willing to accept.

To be a 'God' a being must be worthy of the title.

This whole notion is just an idea..now prove 100% that the idea does not exist?

It would be like saying...To be a ''human'' a being must be worthy of the title...same dilemma.

First prove or disprove the existence of the idea there is a ''human'' title before discounting the 'God' title.

If that fails... the onus in on the claimer of the title to prove or disprove the existence of the absolute claimer's identity?

It's already been explained in the Bible..."Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" < translated as meaning ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Any questions?

[Walker]

Take care, and have fun.

100 proof will pickle your brain.

[Londoner]

To be a 'God' a being must be worthy of the title.

And that judgement can only be made by one even greater than the God, therefore there must exist a meta-God

[Philosophy Explorer]

100% proof. You're halfway there to being totally alcoholic.

PhilX

[Immanuel Can]

Although this is an 'absolute' proof, it's not a proof that all will be willing to accept.

To be a 'God' a being must be worthy of the title.

To be worthy of the title 'God', a being must be 'truly just'.

There's your first problem. Your "truly just" term.

• What is "truly just" in aid of allowing people freedom?

• What is "truly just" in aid of dealing with evil?

• What is "truly just" in a relationship between a Being with absolute power, and limited, contingent beings.

• What is "truly just" between a Creator and the creation?

Now you arbitrarily decide things that you think must follow from the term "truly just," but all of these interpretations you argument takes for granted...for example, that "truly just" beings must imagine that everything is equal...but it's hard to see any reason that that follows.

Or your idea that "truly just" do not "meddle" -- not just because "meddle" is a loaded negative term that cooks the point in one direction (though that's certainly true) but because vast numbers of people think that a "truly just" God would have to "meddle" (to use your terms): that is, if God were all-powerful, they say, He would have an obligation to prevent all evil...and they argue that since God doesn't, he's "unjust"?

The upshot is that you've essentially begged the whole question by defining your terms in a way that may appeal to you personally, but fails to appeal to most people -- even non-Theists. For I doubt the Atheists want to give up their most important argument, namely, "How can God allow evil," for your assumptive position would make us EXPECT that if there were a God, He would not "meddle" nor be obligated morally to do so. The Argument from Evil would then vaporize.

You rejoice too easily, and far too soon, I fear. Notwithstanding the attempt at syllogistic form, no only isn't this "100%," it isn't a "proof," and in fact, isn't even a strong rational argument -- whether from the Theist or the Atheist assumptions.

Now, here's 100% proof you've got no case. From an Atheistic perspective, there can be no such thing as "truly just." For by any fair account of Atheism, we are contingent beings, accidental products of an impersonal universe, not products of a God with either a purpose in mind or any moral framework; and morality therefore has to be a human fiction, a contingent social phenomenon with no reality but imagination behind it -- not an objective reality. Therefore we cannot expect the impersonal universe to be obligated to us to correspond to fictions, "truly just" is just such a fiction, and nothing can be accused of not being "truly just."

Like Hume said, in a universe of merely material facts, there's no "oughtness" in the way things happen to be. What is, is. End of story. So "justice" is just a word that means, "what I happen to want," but not "what is ultimately fair and equitable," as it means in conventional usage and in the way your argument needs it to be understood.

So not only is your key term arbitrary; it's nothing that makes sense within an Atheistic worldview. And without that key term, the subsequent points dissolve like tissue paper...or even worse, they dissolve as if they were never there at all.

Take care, and have fun.

I did. Thank you.

[Lacewing]

It is true that humans cannot judge/define a god based on human traits and understanding -- so we cannot expect that a god would have to be "just" as we know it to be. But if the gods that so many humans affiliate themselves with are NOT "JUST" (as we know it to be), then WHY are these humans pledging allegiance to unknown beings/ideas with questionable values different than our own?

[Immanuel Can]

It is true that humans cannot judge/define a god based on human traits and understanding -- so we cannot claim that a god would have to be "just" as we know it to be.

I didn't quite say that, actually. There might be a useful relationship between divine standards and (some) human ones; and if that were the case then I think we'd be okay to keep asking these sorts of questions.

In other words, IF some human values (such as, say "justice") are not mere human fictions, but rather reflect objective truths about reality as established by God, then we might be able to say, at least approximately, what it meant to ask if God is "just." And that would allow the return of the "How can God allow evil" question, which I think is a legitimate one to ask, and would then merit a serious answer. And I think that's something I ought to concede.

But if the gods that so many humans affiliate themselves with are NOT "JUST" (as we know it to be), then WHY are these humans pledging allegiance to unknown beings/ideas with questionable values different than our own?

Oh, that's much easier to say. Because then "our own" would mean nothing, similar or different would be irrelevant, and the values would not be "questionable," since no objective moral position would exist from which a sensible question could be launched.

So one could pledge -- or not pledge -- allegiance to anything or to nothing...it would make no difference at all. We would have no moral concepts on which to base any judgment about what we should or should not do.

Perhaps then, all we could ask is "What do I want to do," and if somebody chose to do differently than we choose -- say to "pledge allegiance" to something we regarded as a fiction -- we'd have nothing to say about it.

[Lacewing]

Perhaps then, all we could ask is "What do I want to do," and if somebody chose to do differently than we choose -- say to "pledge allegiance" to something we regarded as a fiction -- we'd have nothing to say about it.

That's where we're at, yes? The reason there is anything to say about it is because those who choose allegiance, force their fiction on others. You know this. Many non-theists, including myself, DO NOT CARE what anyone else wants to believe. All that matters is WHAT THE PERSON DOES. If that person continually tells others that they're going to a fictional hell because their fictional god said so -- or if that person kills people in the name of their god, or commits any of the other absurd far-reaching behaviors that are supposedly sanctified or forgiven by their god -- that's a good reason to SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT, don't you think?