Argument from perfection against the existence of god

[ADFGVX]

P1:God exists and is perfect

P2: Perfection implies freedom from error

P3:freedom from error is a concept created by humans

C1:so god is error free according to a human concept

P4: but god is not error free according to human standards

C2:so he is not perfect either

P5: something that is not perfect is ordinary

P5:god is not perfect

C3:so he is ordinary

P6:if god is ordinary, he is not above humans

P7:god is ordinary

C4:therefore he is not above humans

P8:if something is not above humans, it is equal to them

P9:god is not above humans

C5:therefore he is equal to them

P10:what is equal to humans is not different from humans

P11:god is equal to humans

C6:god is not different from humans

P12:if god is not different from humans, he does not exist as a separate entity

P13:god is not different from humans

C7:so he does not exist as a separate entity

P14:if god exists, he is in fact defined as a separate entity

P15:god is not a separate entity

C:god does not exist

What do you all think ? I definitely am aware that some premises require a rather strong defence

 

[TomC]

What do you all think ?

First thing that pops into my mind is the vagueness of the word "God".

You seem to be assuming that we understand that you are talking about the bumbling sky king with superpowers described by Abrahamic religionists. But you didn't actually make that clear.
Tom

ETA ~Welcome to the forum. Hope you're wearing your best fireproof underwear. ~

 

[ADFGVX]

First off ,thanks
Yes , I am talking about the abrahamic God, I thought I implicitly stated that in the course of the argument. It was sloppy of me nevertheless, I just assumed (maybe still correctly) that most know what god I am addressing

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

P1:God exists and is perfect

P2: Perfection implies freedom from error

P3:freedom from error is a concept created by humans

C1:so god is error free according to a human concept

P4: but god is not error free according to human standards

C2:so he is not perfect either

P5: something that is not perfect is ordinary

P5:god is not perfect

C3:so he is ordinary

P6:if god is ordinary, he is not above humans

P7:god is ordinary

C4:therefore he is not above humans

P8:if something is not above humans, it is equal to them

P9:god is not above humans

C5:therefore he is equal to them

P10:what is equal to humans is not different from humans

P11:god is equal to humans

C6:god is not different from humans

P12:if god is not different from humans, he does not exist as a separate entity

P13:god is not different from humans

C7:so he does not exist as a separate entity

P14:if god exists, he is in fact defined as a separate entity

P15:god is not a separate entity

C:god does not exist

What do you all think ? I definitely am aware that some premises require a rather strong defence

P3. Theists will claim God's perfection is Biblical, a revelation from God, hence not a human judgment. And apologists will raise other issues, the Bible God never lies. Presuppositionalism. Simplicity of God. God is so beyond human comprehension, we can only use words like perfect analogically. These words do not mean the same when we apply them to God. A great favorite dodge of the Thomist set.

 

[ADFGVX]

Theists will claim God's perfection is Biblical, a revelation from God, hence not a human judgment

If God's perfection is biblical it must adhere to its principles. God has issued the ten commandmends, in which he sets out rules for living. But god has created humans, a lesser being than him, who are infliciting evil on the world , futhermore perfection on earth is only ever achieved trough work, which could be called some kind of sacrifice. So IMO that could be the first time one could ask? I god is perfect, how has he created so many imperfect things, things that would be imperfect by his own standards? Creatures that defy him? Why does he break he contract himself multiple times troughout the people, by changing his will and thus making corrections? This is not a sign of perfection.

Bible God never lies

If God never lies and all he postulates and says shall thus be followed by lesser creatures which do not possess his perfection, why does he irritate these lesser beings by changing his positions on moral matters , such as revenge and vengeance? Is lying not marked by intenitonally actuating a false conclusion and a following action in another being?

Simplicity of God

If God is a simple explanation, he would require few assumptions and no further explanation. His existence would be easily self evident to all mankind and would there would no questions open which suggest further complexity

God is so beyond human comprehension, we can only use words like perfect analogically.

IMO this can be spun to infinity: How does one then explain the analogy ?by using another analogy? If humans are only capable of describing God in their mundane language, why should this regress a)ever end and B)clarify the existence of God at all , this does not even (IMO) address the problem of prefection, let alone justifies the theist in his belief that even a sheer belief in a God conceptualized like the Abrahamic one , is feasible and justifiable with the limited cognitive scope of a human, meaning this serves the theist no better than the atheist

Anyway, this is actually more or less the first time typing actual arguments and statements concerning my atheism out, so it is not quite easy for me to point them out as I might want them to be pointed out, eventually. I have been an atheist for years, but only ever thought to myself about it, for lack of another person to talk to

 

[TomC]

First off ,thanks

You're welcome.

I just noticed that you identify as "strong atheist".

Could you explain why you are convinced that nothing like God can possibly exist?

Strong atheism seems as irrational as devout religion. Both seem like hubris. Humans claiming to understand the unknowable.

Could you explain this?
Tom

 

[ADFGVX]

IMO strong atheism is NOT the position that no Gods can exist, but rather the strong belief that it is very implausible they do. I also tend to focus heavily on the Abrahamic God when I identify myself as a strong atheist, when it comes to polytheism, I am an a very agnostic atheist at best, just because I do not know enough to make a definite statement, altough I still do not see any necessity to believe in these Gods.
To put it briefly, I am a materialist, and I am throughly convinced, by philosophical and scientific models of explanation, that a God is neither required nor plausible, and I am further driven away by the hiddedness of such Gods. In my opinion, I find devout religion not analagous to anything atheistic, as it claims being knowledgeable enough about something that is by its own definition not accesible to knowledge and thus should not even be grasped it the first place... Strong atheism on the other hand fully stays in the realm of human perception and makes no claim about that there positively is a "supernatural" that in one way or another intteracts with the "natural", for there alaways seems to be at least and equal number against than there a arguments for it. I am also relying on historical occurrences to conclude , that very often god was a mere placeholder installed by humans, because they were in need for an explanation for something they could not grasp. So I am first and foremost not convinced by the concept of God. I can not make a definitve claim about its existence, but I can indeed examine questios concerning nature and decide if God is needed to explain the phenomena we currently inquire about.
I am terribly sorry if that seems all over the place, my thoughts are a jumbling mess in my head right now.

 

[steve_bank]

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

 

[ADFGVX]

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

Correct, but we can make inferences on what is supported by evidence or not. We can determine whether something is neccessary/required and we can then inquire about what is the best explanation for X and why. That is why IMO science and philosophy can and should work together but theology ... not so much, because it has one central immutable dogma

 

[steve_bank]

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

Correcct, but we can make inferences on what is supported by evidence or not. We can determine whether something is neccessary/required and we can then inquire about what is the best explanation for X and why. That is why IMO science and philosophy can and should work together but theology ... not so much, because it has one central immutable dogma

I am glad you approve of my post, I feel much better now.


The debate is entertaining and a way to pass the time. There is no resolution which is why it is called faith not logic and science.

I have been here for a while and have seen all the theist arguments. Years back there was a steady stream of theists on science and religion. Its rather dull these days.

The arguments tend to fall into a few common forms. The arguments are logically valid, meaning no logical fallacies. No contradictions , conclusion follows from premise. The only requirement for a valid syllogism is c follows from p.

There is the teleological argument, the universe can not possibly be without god therefore god must exist.

I heard this in a talk I had with a creationist. We were talking evolution vs creationism. He pointed out the window and said 'Look it is obvious god created it'.

There is the circular argument.

How do you know god exists?
I know because god is in the bible.
How do you know the bible is true?
I know because god is in the bible.

There s a thread where someone claims science proves a god can not exist which I think is false. Science can address spific phsycal evidence offered as proof of god, but science can not categorically prove a god can not exist.

Some atheists are as obcessed with disproving god as atheists are at proving god.

It is good mental exercise. As Hercule Poirot would say, it stimulates the little grey cells.

For over a thousand yeras Catholic theologians ccretae a theology that has no logical fallacies.

 

[ADFGVX]

Science can address spific phsycal evidence offered as proof of god, but science can not categorically prove a god can not exist.

A agree, but teleological and ontological arguments make up a large bunch of theistic arguments, and these things cna be explained by science. Also, to my understand, a dedecutive proof is never done by science, so this is a completely wrong angle of approach IMO. As I said before, science can drastically reduce the plausibility of God, IMO, to such a small extent where one can confidently dismiss the concept of God, no categorical proof is required. I also recommend reading Quentin Smith on that ( I think that essay was behind some kind of paywall, but scihub should still work) I would argue we have basically already reached that point, just look at all the theistic philosophers and apologists either repaeating things ad nauseam and painfully obvious searching for loopholes.

 

[bilby]

The existence of god is neither provable nor disprovable.

The syllogisms of each side are based on premises which are assumed.

As the bible god is never really defined, it is all assumptions and inerpretaliations on both sides.

The application of the scientific method demonstrates that gods are nonsensical constructs with no analog in observable reality.

The existence of dragons, leprechauns, or unicorns is "neither provable nor disprovable", but you would be batshit crazy to behave as though any of these things were genuine parts of reality.

The overwhelming majority of god claims directly contradict well established scientific theories about reality; While philosophers love to argue the minutiae of whether that is "proof" of their non-existence, I am firmly of the belief that anyone asking me to abandon Quantum Field Theory, the Laws of Thermodynamics, or General Relativity, had better be bringing some serious hard and repeatable experimental evidence with them.

Until they do, there's no good reason to do them the courtesy of suggesting that their abject nonsense "hasn't been disproven". The invisible dragons in my garage haven't been disproven either, but if I demanded that the world be organised around my beliefs about what they want, the appropriate response would be secure psychiatric care, not respect for my deep and abiding faith, nor legislation to impose my worldview on others.

 

[Jarhyn]

P1:God exists and is perfect

I'll stop you right there. I reject this premise. Not only will I reject it, I will disprove it. When I am done, at best this will prove that Gods cannot be "Perfect" because perfect here is not a sensible concept in this usage.

To service this, I will use a minimal definition of god (wrt 'universe'): creator of a universe.

Note I use an "A" rather than a "THE" when linking the creator to the universe.

The disproof here is that I am, quite literally, a god over a universe and I am 100% human, bound by all the rules and requirements of QM.

I am not, in fact, the god of this universe, at least to the best of my knowledge.

But I am God to a different universe instantiated within this one: I turned it's lights on and ostensibly have omniscience and omnipotence with respect to it.

And as mentioned, I am human.

There is no specialness about our universe that liberates it from being creatable by things which are, functionally, just as fucked up and "imperfect" as us.

In fact a universe like this, wherein things come to be intelligent and capable of solving problems, cannot exist without problems.

The very idea of "perfect" is itself a contradiction here.

 

[Jarhyn]

The rest of it? Creating universes? Having omnipotence? Having omniscience? That's attainable of a system "like" ours, therefore attainable for ours to the extent that this similarity holds.

They don't have to even explicitly be evil, except in some regards with respect to us. Even so, there are valid, non-mysterious reasons as to why something that isn't evil would do something like create a universe which would inevitably teem with life of some kind capable of learning in some way such that it had problems they would be required to solve, and for whom survival depended on doing them so.

The fact is, I have done the important parts of this exercise to at least enough to come to the valid conclusion that...

Gods can exist. Gods can in fact be Ordinary. Ordinary gods can still be fairly good... they just can't be "perfect". They don't necessarily require worship (in fact, I would not worship any, any more than the love I have for my neighbors!). They don't necessarily exist. There is just no such evidence so far that they do.

There are zero or more.

 

[steve_bank]

Science has diminished god so to speak. In conservative media you can hear secular science is out to destroy religion, including FOX.

The NYT famous piece.

In January 1966, the Times ran a piece about the then-new debate about how society was becoming more secular and God was being “written out” of science and stuff like that. The article had the headline, “Religion; 'God Is Dead' Debate Widens.” There was a text box on the bottom of the page that said “God is Dead.”

It is not really new. I red a book by a Jewish rabbi/philosopher Moses Maimonides A Guide For The Perplexed circa 12th century. He said when scripture and science conflict interpretation of scripture must change.

I heard a rabbi on a show when asked if god exists say it doen't relly matter.

There was a rationalist science movement in Islam around the 17th 18th century that got squashed. The Koran I read was a translation from around 1900 by what today we'd call a moderate to liberal theist. On science he says in his commentary that science and religion have no conflict, they address two different things.


My cosmology book had a short history of cosmology. Region always required science to conform to the current theocracy. Newton resorted to the god of the gaps at times.


As to reasoning you can't have deductive without inductive and vice versa. It is the same logic AND OR IF and so on. The difference is the starting point. Work backwards from an event to a cause. Or start with a set of general facts and work towards a conclusion.

There is proof in a logical sense. There is proof based on evidence. The two can get conflated.

Christian proofs of god are logically sound a lot of the time. But they are not based on objective evidence. Like Young Earth Creationism or humans and dinos roamed the Earth together.

So logical proofs for and against existence of god can be logically sound, but never provable. That is what gives theists free reign to crte theology. God is never really defined but is given attributes.

 

[Kylie]

P1:God exists and is perfect

P2: Perfection implies freedom from error

P3:freedom from error is a concept created by humans

C1:so god is error free according to a human concept

P4: but god is not error free according to human standards

C2:so he is not perfect either

P5: something that is not perfect is ordinary

P5:god is not perfect

C3:so he is ordinary

P6:if god is ordinary, he is not above humans

P7:god is ordinary

C4:therefore he is not above humans

P8:if something is not above humans, it is equal to them

P9:god is not above humans

C5:therefore he is equal to them

P10:what is equal to humans is not different from humans

P11:god is equal to humans

C6:god is not different from humans

P12:if god is not different from humans, he does not exist as a separate entity

P13:god is not different from humans

C7:so he does not exist as a separate entity

P14:if god exists, he is in fact defined as a separate entity

P15:god is not a separate entity

C:god does not exist

What do you all think ? I definitely am aware that some premises require a rather strong defence

I think you need to show evidence for P3. I mean, yeah, it's a concept that Humans have, but if there is a God, why could this God have not also come up with the same concept?

I also disagree with C3, as I think it's based on a false dichotomy, that things are either perfect or ordinary. I mean, I can make a sculpture of a person running (for instance) and I can guarantee that it will be extremely ordinary. (Heck, it would aspire to ordinary.) Now let's say a god created a perfect sculpture of a person running (leaving aside the fact that the quality of perfection in an artistic endeavor is entirely subjective). If this perfect sculpture was to have a tiny scratch on it, it would no longer be perfect. But it would still be far better than my sculpture. And yet you would put them in the same category of "ordinary."

I also disagree with C4, since it also relies on a false dichotomy.

P10 and P11 seem to be saying that if two things are equal in some particular respect,. then they must be equal in all respects, which is not true.

C6 seems to assume that anything that is not greater than Humans must be Human itself.

P12 doesn't make sense to me. There are many humans, and they are all separate entities. By your logic here, we can say that Humans are not different from Humans, therefore Humans do not exist as separate entities. Since I am Human and I am a separate entity to you, that contradicts, and thus I do not exist.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

First off ,thanks

You're welcome.

I just noticed that you identify as "strong atheist".

Could you explain why you are convinced that nothing like God can possibly exist?

Strong atheism seems as irrational as devout religion. Both seem like hubris. Humans claiming to understand the unknowable.

Could you explain this?
Tom

Strong atheism is the position that the many claims made for God result in contradictions, incoherencies, paradoxes and problems that mean God so defined is impossible. Of course there are other definded gods but many of them also have such problems. Of course some gods cannot be so easily disproven. Prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

 

[ADFGVX]

P1:God exists and is perfect

P2: Perfection implies freedom from error

P3:freedom from error is a concept created by humans

C1:so god is error free according to a human concept

P4: but god is not error free according to human standards

C2:so he is not perfect either

P5: something that is not perfect is ordinary

P5:god is not perfect

C3:so he is ordinary

P6:if god is ordinary, he is not above humans

P7:god is ordinary

C4:therefore he is not above humans

P8:if something is not above humans, it is equal to them

P9:god is not above humans

C5:therefore he is equal to them

P10:what is equal to humans is not different from humans

P11:god is equal to humans

C6:god is not different from humans

P12:if god is not different from humans, he does not exist as a separate entity

P13:god is not different from humans

C7:so he does not exist as a separate entity

P14:if god exists, he is in fact defined as a separate entity

P15:god is not a separate entity

C:god does not exist

What do you all think ? I definitely am aware that some premises require a rather strong defence

I think you need to show evidence for P3. I mean, yeah, it's a concept that Humans have, but if there is a God, why could this God have not also come up with the same concept?

I also disagree with C3, as I think it's based on a false dichotomy, that things are either perfect or ordinary. I mean, I can make a sculpture of a person running (for instance) and I can guarantee that it will be extremely ordinary. (Heck, it would aspire to ordinary.) Now let's say a god created a perfect sculpture of a person running (leaving aside the fact that the quality of perfection in an artistic endeavor is entirely subjective). If this perfect sculpture was to have a tiny scratch on it, it would no longer be perfect. But it would still be far better than my sculpture. And yet you would put them in the same category of "ordinary."

I also disagree with C4, since it also relies on a false dichotomy.

P10 and P11 seem to be saying that if two things are equal in some particular respect,. then they must be equal in all respects, which is not true.

C6 seems to assume that anything that is not greater than Humans must be Human itself.

P12 doesn't make sense to me. There are many humans, and they are all separate entities. By your logic here, we can say that Humans are not different from Humans, therefore Humans do not exist as separate entities. Since I am Human and I am a separate entity to you, that contradicts, and thus I do not exist.

I agree with all you criticism, I am sometimes a very "fast " person, but far from it always implying something positive. Maybe my speed in devising this resulted in at least parts of it being pulled out of my backside . For C6 and the accompanying premises I might tell you that it does centainly not help if a)English is not my native language b)I do everything too fast, so that results in carelessness and sloppiness, I apologize. Maybe I will at some time present a revised version. For the underlying concept of a god in general concerning strong atheism, I am in line with Cheerful Charlie, as he made the case more elegantly than I have

 

[steve_bank]

P5: something that is not perfect is ordinary

Not really.

P4: but god is not error free according to human standards

Human standards?

Overall the syllogisms are not very clear. It wouldd have been helpful with all the Ps and Cs to define at the top that which you wre atempring to prove. An outline. When you do that you will make better arguments.

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

Overall conclusions do not follow from premises.

 

[ADFGVX]

The arguments look like loose thoughts strung together.

They might very well be, as I described above I was too fast , I might revise it and post it again at some time.