How do you prove that God, the philosophical God, does not exist?

Question

Our philosophy professor has issued a challenge: Prove that God, the philosophical God, not in its religious sense but in the God which is the uncreated creator or the uncaused cause does not exist?

And yes, the simplest "What God?" answer was already put forward by my fellow students... cute...

TANG... etc etc was the closest but still borders on the religious God and not the philosophical God...

Answer 1

You can't "prove" that, any more than you can "prove" that He/She/It does exist.

Answer 2

Even if a philosopher denies the existence of the religious concept of "God", he may have a principle on which its philosophical system is based, and which is, according to his concept, the centre of the universe. The existence of this principle (arche) proves that a philosopher considers the idea of an objective intelligence. Some may call it god, some not, but there has to be a main notion on which everything is based. No matter the way the thinker relates to this principle(God) he accepts it, directly or not. Even the atheists have something to believe in, in fact you can`t deny something that dosn`t exist.
You should use argumentation errors and sophism to prove the non-existence of "God".

Answer 3

nicely we could placed it like this, There are 2 selection theories, advent in case you will and the huge bang.. If the huge bang is genuine then each little thing until now and after the huge bang will exist interior the comparable way, merely like evolution with its previous and destiny transitions, the comparable way we've our ancestors and descendants and so on.. yet whilst it rather is the case, then the commencing up interior the experience of what sparked off the huge bang ought to have had the comparable until now and after reasons, in certainty in a great bang venture or theory there must be an undemanding commencing up the place there have been finished nothingness, an absolute 0 life, non life, an un certainty of no longer something.. motives why i say it rather is because of the character wherein the huge bang has been defined or provided, it had a commencing up, evolution had a commencing up, this suggests what sparked the huge bang ought to have had a commencing up too.. there is no longer something supernatural approximately it, its merely user-friendly previous certainty, no eternities or countless realities of any variety merely beginnings, leaving its entire previous ensuing in a difinate commencing up factor, without until now it, entire absolute commencing up of the 1st variety.. This leaves us with a dilema, this suggests that variety of commencing up can't spark itself into life, it needs a reason, it needs an life that doesn't want a reason, an eternal life thats completely independant of something because of the fact it exist by potential of itself benefit.. So the certainty that we are right here makes one anticipate that a reason that doesn't belong to the huge bangs universe led to our life, because of the fact we actually do exist and we are evidence of our life, because of the fact our ancestors and descendants are and could be a factor persons, and that they seem to be a factor of an eternal cycle that has descended from an eternal life that on no account had a commencing up and has constantly existed endlessly.. and what's the only ingredient interior the dictionary that would exist endlessly, the respond is a God, purely a God might make us exist on an merchandise that encompasses his certainty, the earth is an merchandise that has no end, locate me the top of a sphere and that i'll coach you the place God began, in certainty there is no end or commencing as much as the sector and no commencing up or end to God..

Answer 4

It is possible to prove the existence of God just as it is possible to prove the existence of a unicorn. All that is required is to produce one.
However it is not possible to prove the non existence of God just as it is not possible to prove the non existence of a unicorn because it can always be said "but have you looked there".
You cannot argue that there is no God because anything that you can imagine is possible. It is only actually looking in the world that you find out whether or not it exists. The best you can say is that it is most unlikley that God exists - if that is what you want to say.
Remember if it were possible to prove the non existence of God it would certainly have been done already.

Answer 5

For the arguments sake lets assume that to prove something we need to put up a logical argument based on observable, provable and explainable facts and from there reason until the only logical conclusion could be the existence (or non-existence, as the case may be) of that thing. We need to stick to hard data to make the argument because those cannot be influenced by our opinions - pi is pi; gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force exist without our opinions and can be measured and explained.
At this point in human evolution and understanding of the universe there are still a lot of things about the rules of nature that we do not know or understand. But there is a possibility that at some point we will be able to understand them (but then again, perhaps we might not. But logically it can be expected that with enough time we might figure out all the rules of nature). But nature, and humans as part of nature, are at the same level of complexity.
God as the uncreated creator or the uncaused cause of nature would have to be assumed to be more complex than his creation, he would be at least one level up in complexity.
And at this point we just have to give up the attempt to prove/disprove God - we cannot understand something at a higher level of complexity. Perhaps monkeys look at the stars, but can they ponder the rules of the universe? No, because it is more complex than their ability to reason. Us looking for the proof/disproof of God are in the same situation. How could we possibly tell when we are looking at something on a level of complexity that is beyond our ken? It wouldn't necessarily be bound by those rules that we as creatures of nature are are bound to.
So my answer to your professors challenge would be that proof of God is in itself impossible for creatures like us - we might be able to observe and explains the rules of the universe, our reasoning powers developed so we can understand and reason our level of complexity, but God would be unprovable - the rules mightn't even apply to him.

Answer 6

To deny the existence of God (eternal creator) is to:

1) Deny that "only some is eternal".

2) Assert that "none is eternal" or "all is eternal".

If only some is eternal then what is eternal brought into being or created what is not eternal (The creator is God).

Views claiming that none is eternal:

1) Nihilism (radical skepticism)

2) Buddhism (radical process)

Views asserting that all is eternal:

1) Material monism (western materialism)

2) Spiritual monism (eastern idealism)

3) Dualism (matter and spirit are eternal)


When applied to itself skepticism self refutes.

As for radical process (no being, only becoming) it cannot be claimed that the process itself is not eternal (without beginning).
Also there is no unique event in an eternal being or process (enlightenment)

As for material monism...it can be shown that matter exists (the cause of what is seen) and matter is not eternal (not self maintaining).

As for spiritual monism...it can be shown that the soul (center of awareness in a person) exists and is not eternal ( "I" do not have infinite knowledge).

As for dualism (dependent or ordinary)... the arguments against material and spiritual monism suffice.


It is clear that there must be something eternal:

1) The contradiction of some is eternal is none is eternal (square of oppositions).

2) if none is eternal then all is temporal (with beginning).

3) if all is temporal then all began to exist.

4) if all began to exist then all came in to being from non-being.

5) Being from non-being is impossible (violates a law of thought...law of identity).

6) Because being from non-being is impossible...the original "none is eternal" cannot be true.

7) Therefore its contradiction "some is eternal" must be true.


There must be something eternal.

To claim existence or knowledge and deny that there must be something eternal is to assert what is meaningless. Namely being from non-being or uncaused events.

There is no meaningful way to claim that none or all is eternal.

I assume this challenge came while studying metaphysics : )

Good question.

*This response assumes that reason (the laws of thought) is ontological (applies to being as well as to thought) and that knowledge of the real is possible.

* Primary source: S Gangadean.

Answer 7

Your professor needs to read the book, More Than A Carpenter, by Josh McDowell, which proves the existence of God and Jesus for that matter

Answer 8

I think you should consult Don Albert on that. Don has a lot of views on this topic. Some philosphers who tried to prove God does not exist were, by logic, led to a conclusion he does exist.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/descartes-god.html. I think maybe Descartes was the one who went at this in a mathematical way. To prove a theorem, you must first try to prove the opposite.

Answer 9

It is not possible. The philosophical God would be the God believed in my millions if not billions. So long as a concept is believed by so many, God exists within their scope of being. God is faith and faith is a human condtion that exists.

Answer 10

Religon and logic use different 'truth tests'. Religion is based on faith. Logic is based on deduction from a known premise. You can't apply logic to religion, just like you can't use faith as an argument in logic.

Its a collossal waste of time if you do. Not that a lot of people haven't engaged in it, I always liken this discussion to 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' because there was a time that people actually tried to apply mathematics to the existence of God. Its just as futile to apply logic to the existence of God.

Answer 11

I would rather see someone prove that he DOES exist.

In Western theology, God has a persona. God has these rules that he is suppose to live by and govern by. If he indeed exist, the world today would not be as it really is. The world does not live by the rules that God says they should be. Therefore, he does not exist.