The Existence of God

The disproof of god is proven in many ways. The first is the hypothetical boulder. If God is all-powerful with all tangible things, can he create a boulder so large that he cannot move it? If he can, then he will be failing to do something, and therefore will not be all-powerful. If he can't then he will unable to do something, and so again will not be all-powerful. Here are more. Just to clarify, I will be defining God as a singular being who is: 1.All-just; 2.All-powerful; 3.All-merciful; 4.Immutable; 5.Transcendent; 6.Is ruler of the universe; 1.And is active in it; 7.Omnipresent; and 8.All-good. 1) Presupposition of Atheism 1.If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. 2.The claim that God exists is an extraordinary claim. 3.Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. 4.There is no extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor. 5.Therefore, the claim that god exists may be considered false. This argument is often known as "Extraordinary claims means extraordinary evidence." To clear everything up, I will define an "extraordinary claim" as the following: Extraordinary claim: A claim that contradicts the accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences in the world. Fact: Extraordinary claims vary in their degree of extraordinariness. For example, allow me to provide three statements: 1.I ate a PB&J for lunch. 2.I won $1,000,000 in the lottery. 3.I rode a unicorn through the forest last night and saw the tooth fairy. Statement 1 is the least extraordinary of the three. It would not contradict the laws of common sense, nor would it contradict our physical experiences. Therefore, little evidence is required for a (sane) person to believe the statement. Statement 2 is even more extraordinary because most people do not win the lotto. This claim contradicts our laws of common sense as most people do not win the lotto. It also contradicts our personal experiences as most people have not won the lotto. However, we know that people do win the lotto, so if you see my ticket matches up with the numbers in the newspaper or on the news, then it is perfectly normal to accept it as truth. The third one, on the other hand, is extremely extraordinary and highly unlikely. If you wanted to believe that latter claim, you would have to change your beliefs about: 1.The reporting of history. 2.The study of zoology. 3.The method of exploring the earth, etc. Therefore, it is most rational to reject the account of the third statement as false, unless quite a bit of evidence was to be presented. The claim that god exists is an extraordinary claim of the highest degree of extraordinariness. The claim is about a being who is not only different than all other creatures on earth, but also what we know about the universe. God is purportedly a being who is unfathomable and perfect in every manner—far different than anything on earth! Therefore, it is rational to reject the belief of god. 2) Incoherent Attributes 1.Paradoxes use logic. 2.Paradoxes prove logic wrong. 3.Therefore, paradoxes, or beings with contradictory properties, do not exist. 4.God is a being with contradictory properties. 5.Therefore, God does not exist. It is possible that a being with unusual powers or characteristics may exist, but a being with contradictory features cannot exist. When I state that a being's attributes are "incoherent," I mean much more than the attributes of that being are strange or mysterious, but that they are contradictory. For example, we know that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) cannot exist as it is impossible to be both invisible and pink. There are numerous contradictory properties that are ascribed to traditional theism; however, the tradition is incoherent. a) Omniscience v. Omnibenevolence: Knowing pleasure in sin A human terrorist: Can know by direct acquaintance the experience of satisfaction derived from unjustly killing a human being. God: Cannot know this by experience since he cannot sin and is omnibenevolent. In this case, a human being can know something that god can't know. But god is supposed to be omniscient, so god must know it. But god can't know it. Thus, the syllogism is as followed: 1.A human being can know what sin is and can take pleasure in this. 2.God, because he is omnibenevolent, does not know what it is like to take pleasure in this. 3.God is omniscience (all-knowing). 4.Because he is all knowing, he must know what it is like to take pleasure in sin. 5.God cannot sin because he is omnibenevolent. 6.For God to know what it is like to sin, he must have sinned (necessary truth). 7.God does not exist. An omnibenevolent God cannot know by personal experience the pleasure felt by a terrorist at killing large numbers of civilians. There are many other examples of cruelty or torture that can also be used to describe this. When I say that God is omnibenevolent, I mean that he is morally perfect. This precludes God from enjoying suffering or torture. b) Omniscience v. Omniscience: Making a mistake. Humans: Can know the experience of finding out he or she made a mistake. God: Cannot know this as he is supposedly all-powerful and perfect in every manner. In this case, God cannot know what it is like to make a mistake. Thus the syllogism is as followed: 1.God is perfect, all-powerful, and all-knowing. 2.Because God is all knowing, he must know what it is like to make a mistake. 3.If God knows what it is like to make a mistake, God made a mistake. 4.God knows what it is like to make a mistake. 5.Hence, God knowing what it is like to know what it is like to make a mistake makes him not perfect and all-powerful. 6.Hence, God does not exist. c) All-knowing v. Omnipotence Human beings: Know what it is like to learn how to do something. God: Already knows everything, so he cannot know what it is like to learn or how to do something. So in this case a human can perform the action of learning, which god cannot, so it would seem that a human can also perform actions that an omnipotent being cannot. In this case, humans can perform the action of learning, which God cannot, so it would seem that humans can also perform actions that an omnipotent being cannot. Thus the syllogism is as followed: 1.God is omniscient. 2.God is and always has been omniscient. 3.A being's omniscience entails, among other things, that it has all experiential knowledge. 4.Having all experiential knowledge entails knowing what it is like to learn. 5.God knows and has always has known what it is like to learn. 6.Knowing what it is like to learn entails having learned something. 7.Having learned something entails that one has gone from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge. 8.God has gone from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge. 9.There was a time when God was in the state of ignorance. 10.God has not always been omniscient. 11.God has always been omniscient and has not always been omniscient. 12.Therefore, God does not exist. Now that I have disproven God's existence, we can move on. If you read the second paragraph, you will find this hard to believe. Let me just add that people think that what their senses show them are always correct and can be used as premises. But how does one know that what they show us is true? We don't. There is no evidence suggesting this, therefore any conclusions made with the premises made using our senses are hypothetical. One could say that this is a belief. However, like atheism, it is not a belief but a rejection of a belief. A common mistake is that the disproof on one thing means the proof of its opposite, or vice versa. Not so. I am simply stating that there is not sufficient evidence to support the