Compelling Argument Against God

dee-em: I see a couple of flaws in your syllogisms. In your justification for the first P1, one could argue we are the collection of cells, not that we're contingent on them.

Next, I disagree with your next P1. Although God and nothing could be said to have similarities, it's not accurate to say they're indistinguishable. Nothing can do some of the things you describe God doing. For example, nothing can't create, it can't move, and nothing can't cause anything. Therefore, God and nothing are not indistinguishable.

admin: Because otherwise you'd have a contingent entity forever into infinity (not even a circular contingency would satisfy the logical conditions of your argument). That's not possible because infinity is not a number, it's a direction. So you can't have "infinite" anything.

You're still only asserting that an entity is always dependent on the existence of another entity. That is nowhere in my syllogisms. I'm not sure what you are arguing against but it isn't my syllogisms.

It sounds increasingly like you're defining God out of existence then.

They're not my definitions.

You've provided definitions based on your own views - that God has no contingency, is distinct and independent, and that energy is not distinct or independent, but also has no contingency.

Any theist will agree that God cannot be contingent. If he were then he would not be God. I don't define God that way. Theists do. That God is an entity (distinct and with an independent existence) is hardly controversial. Again no theist would dispute that God is defined as an entity (in this case an intelligent being) existing independently of the universe. As to energy, you are complaining but I don't see any actual objections. You can't isolate it so I don't see how you can claim that it is a unique and independent thing.

What you need to show is that being distinct and independent proves you have to be contingent.

Why? That is nowhere in my syllogisms.

Your argument was that otherwise it would be indistinguishable from nothing.

You keep insisting on telling me what my argument is without actually understanding my argument. First I demonstrated that God could not be made of something. Then I drew the logical conclusion that an entity not made of something cannot be distinguished from nothing. Once again I would ask that you address my premises. That is how you defeat a syllogism. Instead you are trying to refute arguments I haven't made.

However energy doesn't meet that criterion in your view, since energy is not nothing.

The first syllogism relates to an entity. Energy does not qualify unless you can make a compelling argument why it does. We have covered this ground.

It all comes back to that initial premise and I'm having a hard time establishing what exactly your standard is here, because reading this, I'm certain it has shifted at least twice.

If you can point out where I have "shifted standards" I will be happy to clarify further. I don't believe that is the case. I used the word "entity" in the OP. Later you queried the meaning and I supplied you a standard dictionary definition. Where is the shift?

dsjpk5: Ha, I see you've made the move too.

In your justification for the first P1, one could argue we are the collection of cells, not that we're contingent on them.

That is just semantics. Could human beings exist if cells had not evolved first? The answer is obviously no. Therefore human beings are contingent on cells.

Next, I disagree with your next P1. Although God and nothing could be said to have similarities, it's not accurate to say they're indistinguishable. Nothing can do some of the things you describe God doing. For example, nothing can't create, it can't move, and nothing can't cause anything. Therefore, God and nothing are not indistinguishable.

You're kidding right?

dee-em: I still feel like you're missing my point. Here your reply is much the same line as you've said previously.

Why? That is nowhere in my syllogisms.
Distinct and independent = an entity. You've also stated that an entity that doesn't have the quality of being contingent on something it is made of, will then be indistinguishable from nothing. So being distinct and independent - this is your logical warrant here - must mean you have the quality of being contingent on something you're made of. My claim is that this is absurd. Let me put this to you as a syllogism with premises you may recognize:
P1: If an entity is made of something then it is contingent on what it is made of.
P2: If an entity is not made of something then it is indistinguishable from nothing.
C: A contingent entity is distinguishable from nothing

It sort of reminds me of debates like "does the number one exist"? Because it's distinct and independent but you can't find it anywhere. The whole thing is just semantic regressions.

dee-em: Therefore human beings are contingent on cells.
At a certain point you've admitted to me everything is contingent on a non-entity that for some reason doesn't meet the logical standards of your claims. You've called it energy. I've seen legitimate theologians call it God. I should know because I've been in debates with exactly that argument coming up.

dee-em: First, how do you insert quotes?

Second, yes I am at least dipping a toe here.

You have a good point concerning cells.

No, I am not kidding.

dsjpk5: I can answer the quote thing.

By default, if you copy-paste stuff into a reply box on the forums, it will automatically insert quote tags around the box. You can turn this off with the "Enable Auto-Quoting" tick-box underneath the field.

There are other formatting options available too. This page explains stuff: http://www.edeb8.com/blog/Forum+formatting

admin: Thanks!

dee-em: Interesting, as I understand the argument it seems to equate non-contingent with non-existent. I’m not sure I agree. Contingency is defined as dependent for existence. That does not seem to me to be the same as to say if something is not contingent it does not exist. While I think it would be interesting to ask for evidence that something non-contingent can exist, it does not seem to me to be a convincing argument. I do think this highlights the special pleading that occurs in pro God arguments as the only presented as non-contingent is God.

Basically, my main concern is that the way contingent is being used in premise one is not what I think is meant by the word contingent. Basically the way it is applied seems to devolve into an infinite regress. This seems to be highlighted by Admin when he says “Everything is contingent on energy. What is energy contingent on? See the problem?” Thus, if I accepted the argument it may disprove God, but also anything else that exists.

admin: Distinct and independent = an entity. You've also stated that an entity that doesn't have the quality of being contingent on something it is made of, will then be indistinguishable from nothing.

No, I have not. God is asserted to be an entity and he is defined as being non-contingent. I did not make the general, combined statement you are making. My two premises were separate and distinct. Please try to address my actual argument.

Let me put this to you as a syllogism with premises you may recognize:
P1: If an entity is made of something then it is contingent on what it is made of.
P2: If an entity is not made of something then it is indistinguishable from nothing.
C: A contingent entity is distinguishable from nothing

My syllogism was in the form of modus tollens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

I don't know what yours is so, no, I don't recognize it. In any event I have no problem with the conclusion although I am dubious at how you arrived at it. What is the problem? Where is the absurdity?

It sort of reminds me of debates like "does the number one exist"? Because it's distinct and independent but you can't find it anywhere. The whole thing is just semantic regressions.

Firstly, I fail to see the comparison. Number notation is just that, notation. Numbers don't have an independent existence. Secondly, I believe I have already addressed the problem of regression. I don't see the point in reiterating the same failed objections without saying anything new.

admin: At a certain point you've admitted to me everything is contingent on a non-entity that for some reason doesn't meet the logical standards of your claims. You've called it energy. I've seen legitimate theologians call it God. I should know because I've been in debates with exactly that argument coming up.

The only problem is that energy is not an entity (as I have explained) and theists very definitely conceive of God as an entity. I have pointed this out numerous times now.

Kasmic: Interesting, as I understand the argument it seems to equate non-contingent with non-existent. I’m not sure I agree.

Not at all. My argument only concerns a non-contingent entity (ie. God) and I am arriving at a logical conclusion, not equating anything.

Contingency is defined as dependent for existence. That does not seem to me to be the same as to say if something is not contingent it does not exist.

I didn't just say that, I concluded it logically in the specific case of God. Can you point out a flaw in my logic (the premises)?


Basically, my main concern is that the way contingent is being used in premise one is not what I think is meant by the word contingent.

It's the way theists conceive of God and that's how I am using it, to indicate dependency.

Basically the way it is applied seems to devolve into an infinite regress. This seems to be highlighted by Admin when he says “Everything is contingent on energy. What is energy contingent on? See the problem?”

I have addressed this objection ad nauseam. I invite you to read back through the posts so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Thus, if I accepted the argument it may disprove God, but also anything else that exists.

Conclusion drawn from an invalid premise.

dee-em: In a logical argument, premises are not separate. They are linked by conclusions. Just because you didn't make a conclusion doesn't mean it doesn't follow from your argument. At this point I think perhaps we disagree on what logic itself is.

dee-em: I have addressed this objection ad nauseam.
You certainly have addressed it but the reason people (ie all three of us, of different actual beliefs regarding God) keep bringing it up to you is because you haven't adequately understood the actual counter-argument. Repeating the same response doesn't further dissolve us of the conviction unless the response answers the conviction. So our challenge is to frame this to you in different ways until you understand the flaw in your argument, and yours is to try to understand why everyone else doesn't think your case is as solid as you think it is.

admin: You certainly have addressed it but the reason people (ie all three of us, of different actual beliefs regarding God) keep bringing it up to you is because you haven't adequately understood the actual counter-argument.

Are you claiming that I addressed your objections without understanding them? If so, I would like some specifics instead of this vague attack on me.


Repeating the same response doesn't further dissolve us of the conviction unless the response answers the conviction.

Well, if you keep making the same refuted objections why would I bother with a different response? At some point you have to actually engage with the substance of my response instead of just reiterating your objections.

So our challenge is to frame this to you in different ways until you understand the flaw in your argument, and yours is to try to understand why everyone else doesn't think your case is as solid as you think it is.

I like the presumption that there is a flaw in my argument even though you have been unable to challenge my premises and I have refuted every counter-argument you have made. You seem to just assume I must be wrong and that it is only a question of time until you identify the problem. That's an interesting approach and I await your "killer" counter-argument with much anticipation.

dee-em: I like the presumption there is no flaw in your argument unless somebody points one out using terms you can understand. That's an interesting kind of critical thinking.

Your response has been entirely shifting the language of what constitutes membership of varying sets. My problem with the argument has absolutely nothing to do with that, rather, it is how those sets are logically connected in your premise statements. Even if I grant everything you're defining about God, entities, the universe, energy etc, that STILL means my problem remains, because no matter how you redefine the terms, ultimately the actual problem is with your premises relating to each other in an absurd way which could be construed to lead to illogical outcomes. I'm not saying YOU'RE using those premises in that way, however if a premise could ever be used to prove anything illogical, that immediately means the premise must be false. However you've identified that your premises are not connected, so logically it follows you can't make any conclusions from them. At this point I'm not really sure how best to put this to you.

Just because you have a sequence of claims and put P1, P2 and C in front of them, doesn't mean that sequence is logical. You have the burden of proof here, and we're doing you a favor by reviewing your argument and offering our honest ideas. I'm not saying this because I can't think of a response - indeed it's quite the opposite situation, as there are other possible logical attacks, this was just the first that came to mind when I saw the OP. Bringing up further issues with your argument would be unhelpful at this time. But if your approach is to defend your own argument, perhaps that would be better suited to a debate than a forum discussion. I approach chats like this in the same way I would be asked to review an academic paper from one of my peers.

admin: I like the presumption there is no flaw in your argument unless somebody points one out using terms you can understand. That's an interesting kind of critical thinking.

I invite you note the title of this thread. It is "Compelling Argument Against God". It is not "Foolproof Argument Against God". I have made no such presumption as you accuse me. All I have done is respond to your posts and refuted your objections. That does not mean you may not come up with a valid objection. I do not rule that out. I have merely pointed out that your current approach is flawed. You need to attack the premises from which the conclusions automatically follow.

Your response has been entirely shifting the language of what constitutes membership of varying sets.

That's the second time you have asserted this. I answered this criticism and you failed to address it. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Even if I grant everything you're defining about God, entities, the universe, energy etc, that STILL means my problem remains, because no matter how you redefine the terms, ultimately the actual problem is with your premises relating to each other in an absurd way which could be construed to lead to illogical outcomes. I'm not saying YOU'RE using those premises in that way, however if a premise could ever be used to prove anything illogical, that immediately means the premise must be false.

More assertions I'm afraid. My proof is for the non-existence of God. How is that conclusion illogical? I am confused.

However you've identified that your premises are not connected, ...

Have I? Where?

... so logically it follows you can't make any conclusions from them.

I explained that I was using a modus tollens syllogism. I even provided a wikipedia link for you. Are you now questioning the validity of such a syllogism? (That would be quite ironic since your attempted syllogism in response followed no known logical structure that I could discern).

Just because you have a sequence of claims and put P1, P2 and C in front of them, doesn't mean that sequence is logical.

I guess you really are questioning the validity of modus tollens. I can only quote wikipedia:

In propositional logic, modus tollens[1][2][3][4] (or modus tollendo tollens and also denying the consequent)[5] (Latin for "the way that denies by denying")[6] is a valid argument form and a rule of inference. It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contra-positive.

You have the burden of proof here, and we're doing you a favor by reviewing your argument and offering our honest ideas

And I appreciate it. I would appreciate it even more if you stopped with the near-ad homs and concentrated on my actual arguments. So far you have tried telling me what my arguments should be, you have attacked strawmen, you have unfairly accused me of shifting terminology and definitions, you have suggested that I can't understand the counter-arguments, you have tried the argumentum ad populum fallacy (if three people are disagreeing with you then you must be wrong) and now you have resorted to denying propositional logic. Am I really the problem?

dee-em: Well that assumes there's a problem. You're certainly making it out as if there's one. The only worrying thing going on here is that you're not trying to make sense of what I'm saying and are leaving it to me to convince you that you're wrong. I'm suggesting that's a problematic approach to the argument. Perhaps in the middle of a debate there would be some merit to such an inquiry, but it is certainly limited. Pointing that out isn't an ad-hom attack either. You're not understanding my point just as much as I'm not understanding yours. So our failure to communicate is co-constructed. All knowledge is founded in these interconnections, so being an inescapable fact of natural reason, it is natural for arguments to involve clashes of personally held meanings and understandings. Again that's no failure on your part, yet it is still vital for both of us to overcome. An ad-hom - which I take as a very serious accusation - would be if I'd said "well you would say that because you're an atheist!" The reason it is not logically valid is because the argument could still be true if your being an atheist is not related to the argument.

The argument isn't fallacious for its use of propositional logic, however, that doesn't mean it is restricted to the forms of logic you want to argue. If I make a deduction and show how that deduction follows from any two propositions you have provided, that's a logically solid line of inquiry, because the absurdity of that conclusion directly impacts on the quality of your whole argument. For example, imagine an argument where two premises could contradict each other. Even though both premises might not be contradictory in the context of the argument, the fact that they could contradict each other is proof one of them must be incorrect. That is not the case with your syllogisms, but in principle, it shows that there are times where arguments must be extended in order to work out how they are flawed. Without making that additional conclusion you could never make any inferences about any existing argument, and therefore you could not falsify the argument. An argument that cannot be wrong must be tautological, itself a fallacy.

The only reason your sequence of claims, or any modus tollens, can be logically valid is if there are causal links between the premises and the conclusions. You attempted to demonstrate this right from your OP when you defended your own conclusions and premises as valid. This is crucial because you can't have a logical discourse if you're not seeing how these things connect. If your claims are not true then it doesn't matter if you're using some existing logical structure or not - the whole truth of the whole argument DEPENDS on all of your claims being true. Again, the logical format you're using makes no difference at all to whether your argument is true or not. The only reason such structures are even a thing is that they help you to establish warrants. Likewise the fact you don't recognize a simple deductive claim based on two premises you've provided, does not imply it cannot be true. Such is a mathematical problem, not a memory problem. This is crucial because your claim was: "My two premises were separate and distinct." Logically this is not relevant. It's like saying two words are separate thus you can never use them in a sentence together. Premises are just logical claims and if you claim them then you have to defend them no matter what other absurd premises they are paired with. This is doubly true if I'm just making a reasonable conclusion based on two of your premises. That's how logic works.

Well that assumes there's a problem. You're certainly making it out as if there's one.

I think there is for the reasons I gave which you don't appear to contest. It is strange to me that you as admin/mod of the site behaves in this way where you try to dominate and alienate a new member. You may not think you are doing it but I can assure you that is how it comes across. You have as much as called me dense because I cannot "understand" your counter-arguments. This is very poor form.

The only worrying thing going on here is that you're not trying to make sense of what I'm saying and are leaving it to me to convince you that you're wrong.

So you keep asserting. Yet I have addressed every objection you have made and you ignore my responses and keep coming back with this. It is becoming rather tiresome.

So our failure to communicate is co-constructed.

Nah. I suspect you stretch yourself pretty thin which means you probably don't read things carefully and as a result make snap judgements which aren't warranted. Time and again I have clarified where you asked for clarification and explained my position where you have misunderstood it. I notice you abandon those lines of discussion pretty quickly and then resort to generalities as you are doing now. I'm not much interested in continuing with this exposition of each other's failings, real or imagined, so I might leave it there. If you ever want to return to the OP and try to address the logical proof provided by refuting one or more of the premises, I'll be here.

dee-em: FYI, if you do it as a reply to my post as opposed to a reply to the thread I get a notification

I'm sorry if you feel like I was trying to alienate or dominate you. It's a fine line because obviously this is a discussion you want to have but then of course everyone has their boundaries, and it's hard to know sometimes where those are. To be clear I'm not calling you dense and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I'm not in any way referencing your personal intelligence at all - this is all about the argument. Similarly I think it's important to give messages the benefit of the doubt if it seems like you can either take it personally or not.

I'm aware that I come from a different line of philosophical inquiry so some challenge is necessary. I have little formal training in logic and metaphysics other than a lot of books about it and a decade of formal debate experience. Both of us have felt like the other one hasn't addressed something so I do see it as a communication issue. There's no blame or responsibility in that and I'm sorry you felt responsibilitised. I also have no trouble with backing off from a discussion if you'd like. This is all why, as I say, I take the ad hom charge very seriously but I'm not sure it's really fair. Rather, it's a process of sense-making.