100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Harbal]

Indeed.

It's funny how you can sense what someone is thinking just from one short word. I'm just trying to get noticed, that's all, Immanuel.

[surreptitious57]

Discussing it is interesting but it can never be resolved

You say it but your actions dont indicate you think it is true. If you did then I think you would not bother to discuss it at all
Rather you must think there is at the minimum a point here worth discussing even if you tend to come down on the negative side

I enjoy philosophical discussion for its own sake. Furthermore I only ever discuss atheism on rational or philosophy sites
Since when I switch my computer off I engage no one with respect to it and so it is not as big a deal for me as you claim
The older I get the more detached I become as all this will eventually pass so that is another reason for just letting it be

[Immanuel Can]

[The older I get the more detached I become as all this will eventually pass so that is another reason for just letting it be

Hmmm...
I wonder how "let it be" will serve in the end.

[Reflex]

But we can easily prove that god does not exist. All we need is a dose of Alvin Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Special Super Secret Sauce. Here we go.

Premise 1 : It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 2 : If it is possible that God does not exist then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3 : If God does not exist in some possible worlds then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4 : If God does not exist in all possible worlds then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 5 : If God does not exist in the actual world then God does not exist.
Conclusion : Therefore God does not exist.


See how easy that was?

</thread>

What happens to the argument when it is said that God is the power of being or being itself?

[davidm]

It is possible that God does not exist.

But what if, as is likely, some claim that it is not possible for God not to exist? That would sort of make 2,3,4 and 5 redundant, wouldn't it?

But see, that’s the point of all modal ontological arguments — and there are many of them that are quite challenging, such as from Hartshorne, Godel, Maydole, etc. They are far better than Plantinga’s rubbish.

The point of these arguments is to prove that it is not possible that God not exist. So, sure, if one starts with the premise “It’s not possible that God does not exist,” then the other succeeding premises in the disproof I offered would be redundant. But of course, to do this would be to beg the question.

I could just as well declare that it is not possible that god does exist and then the premises of Plantinga’s proof of god would become redundant.

In his modal ontological “proof” of god, Plantinga conflates the two different senses of “possible,” as I have explained. There are two senses of “possible” here:

For all I know, it is possible that God exists, or that Goldbach’s Conjecture is true. (epistemic possibility)

God exists at some possible worlds, and Goldbach’s Conjecture is true at some possible worlds. (modal possibility)

These two are not the same at all, and cannot logically be conflated. Plantinga conflates them.

Now we do not know which sense of the term “possible” Plantinga meant in his P1.

If he meant in the first epistemic sense, then he cannot logically move to P2, anymore than one can do so with Goldbach’s Conjecture.

If he meant it in the second modal sense then he has begged the question from the get-go and the argument collapses before it gets off the ground.

Either way the argument is plainly a logical botch.

Bear in mind that in modal logic, to say that x is true at some possible world is just a formal way of saying that x is a contingent truth. But by definition god cannot contingently exist and Goldbach’s Conjecture cannot be contingently true. Both are either necessarily true (true at all possible worlds) or necessarily false (false at all possible worlds).

So as soon as one says that God is possible in the modal sense then what one is actually saying is God necessarily exists because for necessary truths in modal logic, all modally possible truths entail modally necessary truths.

I am sure I Can sees what I am talking about specifically with respect to Plantinga’s Modal OA. The fact that this particular argument is so glaringly wrong doesn’t mean all such arguments are wrong — just this one.

It would be best for him concede the point on this particular argument, because it would enhance his own credibility. But I predict he won’t do it.

[davidm]

But we can easily prove that god does not exist. All we need is a dose of Alvin Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Special Super Secret Sauce. Here we go.

Premise 1 : It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 2 : If it is possible that God does not exist then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3 : If God does not exist in some possible worlds then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4 : If God does not exist in all possible worlds then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 5 : If God does not exist in the actual world then God does not exist.
Conclusion : Therefore God does not exist.


See how easy that was?

</thread>

What happens to the argument when it is said that God is the power of being or being itself?

Then one would have to prove this and not beg the question by making it a premise of the argument.

[davidm]

[The older I get the more detached I become as all this will eventually pass so that is another reason for just letting it be

Hmmm...
I wonder how "let it be" will serve in the end.

And, yet again, Argumentum ad minas.

Feel that Christian charity!

[uwot]

But if Atheists say, "God does not exist," or "There are no reasons to believe God exists," then they have reopened themselves. They've made positive knowledge claims, and owe evidence or reasons.

Well Mr Can, if you can find someone prepared to make either of those claims, then by all means have a hissy fit and demand evidence or reasons from them. In the meantime, grow up and stop lying to yourself that this is the claim that all atheists contributing to this forum, are committed to. They are not, and in the four years since you puked up on this place, you have failed to acknowledge that; despite being told repeatedly by the atheists you accuse of irrationality, bad faith and dumbness, that they are not saying what you accuse them of saying.
Once again, Mr Can: an atheist is someone who, for whatever reason, does not believe in god. They are not committed to insisting that god does not exist, because:
I don't believe god exists.
Does not mean the same as:
I do believe that god doesn't exist.
I have to assume that your failure to acknowledge the difference, is due to dishonesty, because nobody could be that stupid, for that long.
Nor are atheists compelled to say "There are no reasons to believe God exists". It is quite enough to point out that the reasons given by the likes of you, are little better than believing in the Tooth Fairy, because there's a sixpence under your pillow.

[Immanuel Can]

Feel that Christian charity!

And interesting critique. In your world, it's "charity" to let people die in the dark, and "uncharitable" to raise even a voice to help them do otherwise. "Fair is foul, and foul is fair." The Bard had it right.

[uwot]

The concept "Supreme Being," on the other hand, is a concept at least entertained by 96% of the world's population. I would say that raises the stakes considerably, wouldn't you?

Argumentum ad populum, Mr Can.

[uwot]

Feel that Christian charity!

And interesting critique. In your world, it's "charity" to let people die in the dark, and "uncharitable" to raise even a voice to help them do otherwise.

Non sequitur.
Two more and you win a biscuit.

[davidm]

Feel that Christian charity!

And interesting critique. In your world, it's "charity" to let people die in the dark, and "uncharitable" to raise even a voice to help them do otherwise. "Fair is foul, and foul is fair." The Bard had it right.

Since you are obviously intelligent, you would have more credibility if you conceded obvious points (such as that Plantinga's OA is a mess) and if you would extend to nontheists the principle of charity that you ask of them.

When nontheists hear stuff like "I wonder how 'let it be' will serve in the end," we don't see theists trying to extend a helping hand. We see attempts to browbeat nonbelievers into submission for the purpose of social control. 'We see priests backed by kings demanding obeisance to the church lest nonbelievers burn in hellfire, etc. This serves the purpose of both kings and priests who get nice, docile subjects to be fleeced and exploited.

In any event, as I have argued elsewhere, a God who would torture someone for eternity simply for lacking belief in God is a thoroughly wicked entity and not worthy of worship even if he exists.

[Reflex]

But we can easily prove that god does not exist. All we need is a dose of Alvin Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Special Super Secret Sauce. Here we go.

Premise 1 : It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 2 : If it is possible that God does not exist then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3 : If God does not exist in some possible worlds then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4 : If God does not exist in all possible worlds then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 5 : If God does not exist in the actual world then God does not exist.
Conclusion : Therefore God does not exist.


See how easy that was?

</thread>

What happens to the argument when it is said that God is the power of being or being itself?

Then one would have to prove this and not beg the question by making it a premise of the argument.

LOL! You're the who begs the question. What I gave you is classical theism. Actually, it's a straw man argument you've set up -- and a rather juvenile one at that.

[davidm]

What happens to the argument when it is said that God is the power of being or being itself?

Then one would have to prove this and not beg the question by making it a premise of the argument.

LOL! You're the who begs the question. What I gave you is classical theism. Actually, it's a straw man argument you've set up -- and a rather juvenile one at that.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what the ontological argument is, you don't know what the modal ontological argument is, you don't know what begging the question is. Go sit at the children's table.

[surreptitious57]

if Atheists say God does not exist or There are no reasons to believe God exists then they have
reopened themselves. They have made positive knowledge claims and owe evidence or reasons

Absolutely. But most atheists I know are agnostic not gnostic. They do not think that God exists
but cannot prove it. That is an assumption rather than an assertion and so it is not a truth claim