From: rainerd@drunol.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Rainer Dickermann)
Subject: THE PROOF: The Non-existence of GOD !
Summary: In the past, many theologists tried to proof the existance of GOD (i.e. Thomas von Aquin ... ), and they always failed to do so...
Keywords: atheist, atheism, GOD, religion, logic, proof, reality, creator, the one and only, what?
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen
Date:  9 Oct 92 09:23:57 GMT






It is really amazing that so many people, atheist and mono-, or polytheists,
believe that the idea of a GOD is something that cannot be reached by
concepts of logic or by genuine human reasoning.
Indeed, this may be true if the idea of GOD is an empty one,
that would mean we are talking about something that is virtually nothing
and so we could stop here saying GOD does not exist, q.e.d.!

In case the idea of GOD is not empty, it must contain at least one meaning
and that meaning can be compared with reality and can be examined if it
follows the laws of logic.
But what kinds of sets of meanings do exist ?
I think we must distinguish between limited sets of meanings that I call
singular, and open sets of meanings that I call relevant.
A singular meaning stands alone and contributes only to itself, thus
it is only useful if concerned with itself, to other sets of meanings it
behaves like the empty idea.
A relevant meaning is connected to other meanings in that way that its
falsification or verification affects the falsification or verification
of other meanings. With falsification means to show that a meaning is
singular and verification means to show that a meaning is relevant.
Obviously this definition is relative in that way, that a whole set
of relevant meanings is of course a singular set and a singular set
can consist of sets of relevant meanings, but the relevant meanings
of to different and singular sets are of course singular in comparison.

So we can say that the set of meanings that we call reality ( and that
we do not know in its wholeness ) is a singular set and all that we
call true or say 'it exists' must be a relevant set as part of that
singular set of meanings that we call universe or reality.

With that definitions we can say that all meanings of the idea of GOD
must be relevant meanings unless we can say GOD does not exist.
If somebody says :' GOD is the creator of the universe and therefore
the cause of everything, but his creation is a mystique and can never
be understood.'
or,
' GOD is the creator... (blabla) ..., but his existance is a mystique
and can never be understood... ',
then that is only the proof that this is a singular meaning and therefore
not existing.
So there have to be some traces of GOD in the world that could make GOD
a relevant set of meanings to reality.
Let's take some meanings of the christian GOD to proof it on reality:
1. GOD is the all-mighty.
2. GOD is the all-loving.
3. GOD is the all-knowing.
Is is really obvious that these 3 statements can't exist without
contradiction if compared with reality.
If 'GOD is all-loving' means GOD cares of all of us, this care seems not
to be the very best compared to the many people living in despair or
suffer from crulest illnesses. And because GOD should be all-knowing,
GOD would know everything to help these people, and because GOD should be
all-mighty there would be the capacity to make that all undone or not even
happen ! But reality proofs the contradiction, and more :
reality seems not needing any kind of GOD so that the existence or non-
existence makes no difference, or is just a kind of a nice tale that has
been told to amaze the folks ( like the sleeping GOD who dreams the reality,
and should he ever awake, all is gone ).
Unless there are no traces found, that show the acting of a GOD, that
idea is singular and therefore not true, q.e.d.

Rainer D.

P.S.: please excuse the bad english.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism