# Thread: quick logical proof that god doesn't exist

1. Believers are supposed to have faith in god, rather than demand evidence

A common support for this is that 'you cannot prove god does not exist'.

But, this is true of infinite non-disprovable hypothesis.

Thus, any one such hypothesis (that is neither disprovable or provable) is one of infinitely many.

Infinite hypotheses that are similar to any religious myth or 'intelligent design' theorems cannot all be true at once. One being true would disqualify the others

Thus, the likelihood of any one 'god' theory being true are infinity-to-one, which is equivalent to zero. Therefore the chances of god existing are zero.

I argue that in lieu of empirical evidence for god, the above argument disproves his existence

QED

Discuss  2.

3. Originally Posted by StevePenk333 Thus, any one such hypothesis (that is neither disprovable or provable) is one of infinitely many.
On the other hand, if there are an infinite number of hypotheses then the probability of one of them being correct must equal 1. Therefore god exists. QED.

One being true would disqualify the others
But if one is true, then god exists. QED

Thus, the likelihood of any one 'god' theory being true are infinity-to-one, which is equivalent to zero. Therefore the chances of god existing are zero.
A more serious problem with your argument is that you are treating infinity as a number and dividing by it to get zero. You can't do that. So your proof that god does not exist is invalid. Therefore god exists. QED.

Thanks for playing.  4. Originally Posted by Strange On the other hand, if there are an infinite number of hypotheses then the probability of one of them being correct must equal 1. Therefore god exists. QED.

One being true would disqualify the others

But if one is true, then god exists. QED
no, because an infinitely small number of the possible hypotheses involve god. Many of them involved magic lizard unicorns who live on Mars with Hitler

A more serious problem with your argument is that you are treating infinity as a number and dividing by it to get zero. You can't do that. So your proof that god does not exist is invalid. Therefore god exists. QED.

Thanks for playing.
A more accurate statement might be 'the probablity of any conception of God being true is infinitely small'. Whilst the probability is not exactly zero, it is as close to zero as one can possibly get. So we might as well call it zero   5. Just because you could invent thousands of fictitious accounts of gravity does not mean gravity does not exist. Similarly, just because there are many definitions of god, does not in itself imply the non-existence of any of them. That is pretty logical.  6. Originally Posted by KALSTER Just because you could invent thousands of fictitious accounts of gravity does not mean gravity does not exist. Similarly, just because there are many definitions of god, does not in itself imply the non-existence of any of them. That is pretty logical.
Gravity is empirically proveable though.

Not to say that anything not empirically proveable is necessarily untrue, but rather that, in the absence of evidence, and especially with much of observable evidence flatly contradicting religious stories, any given religious account sits among infinity make-believe explanations.

I have probably phrased this all poorly. What I am really trying to fight against is the argument that runs 'you cannot disprove God, therefore you cannot say God does not exist'. I think I would say that at this stage, the God of the Bible (for example) can be said not to exist  7. Well, the truly scientific view would be that nothing can be proven. Despite this though, I believe in the god of the Bible about as much as I believe in the tooth fairy. While the non-existence of the Biblical god and the tooth fairy has not been proven, the scales are massively tilted towards "does not exist". Based on this then, I make the confident claim that the god of the Bible does not exist.

A case (albeit a week one) could be made for the Biblical god that would make it more plausible than an invisible dragon in my garage having created the world for instance, which would elevate it above "infinity make-believe explanation" imo.  8. Originally Posted by StevePenk333 A more accurate statement might be 'the probablity of any conception of God being true is infinitely small'. Whilst the probability is not exactly zero, it is as close to zero as one can possibly get. So we might as well call it zero Any fraction of infinity is infinity. So, of your infinite hypotheses, some fraction of them must be about a God. Of that infinite number of hypotheses about God some fraction must be true. Therefore an infinite number of them are true. Therefore God exists. QED.  9. no, because an infinitely small number of the possible hypotheses involve god
No, actually. If there are infinite hypothesis, then there are infinite hypothesis involving god. And if there are infinite hypothesis, one of them must be right, Therefore God exists. QED.

Infinite does not mean 'a really lot of' .

Anybody else want to give the same answer?  10. Originally Posted by Strange  Originally Posted by StevePenk333 A more accurate statement might be 'the probablity of any conception of God being true is infinitely small'. Whilst the probability is not exactly zero, it is as close to zero as one can possibly get. So we might as well call it zero Any fraction of infinity is infinity. So, of your infinite hypotheses, some fraction of them must be about a God. Of that infinite number of hypotheses about God some fraction must be true. Therefore an infinite number of them are true. Therefore God exists. QED.
I'm not sure what you mean by "any fraction of infinity is infinity." Any constant-numerator fraction of infinity is 0. 1 / infinity is 0.

lim [x -> inf] n/x = 0 where n is any real number. (I need to learn latex)

But mathematically, the original poster's argument is not valid, I think. A probability cannot be based on an infinite sample size.

The sum from j = 1 to n of 1 / n is just 1. However, when n is infinity, the sum is 0, not 1 as you would expect. Therefore, I think you cannot logically use probabilities how they are being used in the original post. It is interesting to think about though.  11. Originally Posted by ccoale427 I'm not sure what you mean by "any fraction of infinity is infinity." Any constant-numerator fraction of infinity is 0. 1 / infinity is 0.

lim [x -> inf] n/x = 0 where n is any real number. (I need to learn latex)
No, the other thing:   12. Originally Posted by Strange  Originally Posted by ccoale427 I'm not sure what you mean by "any fraction of infinity is infinity." Any constant-numerator fraction of infinity is 0. 1 / infinity is 0.

lim [x -> inf] n/x = 0 where n is any real number. (I need to learn latex)
No, the other thing: Ah, I misunderstood -- my apologies. I think the OP was referring to what I stated though. I think his reasoning was along the lines that the probability of any one idea of god existing is which is in fact true, just not really "practical" since it requires an infinite sample size. (Of course, an infinite sample size doesn't make sense statistically...)  13. Originally Posted by ccoale427 Ah, I misunderstood -- my apologies. I think the OP was referring to what I stated though. I think his reasoning was along the lines that the probability of any one idea of god existing is which is in fact true, just not really "practical" since it requires an infinite sample size. (Of course, I disagree with the idea that there are actually an infinite number of "god concepts" to begin with.)
I agree completely. Because of those flaws, I wasn't sure if it was a serious argument or just a bit of a joke...

p.s. for learning/testing Latex, this is really useful: Online LaTeX Equation Editor - create, integrate and download  14. Originally Posted by AlexG no, because an infinitely small number of the possible hypotheses involve god
No, actually. If there are infinite hypothesis, then there are infinite hypothesis involving god. And if there are infinite hypothesis, one of them must be right, Therefore God exists. QED.

Infinite does not mean 'a really lot of' .

Anybody else want to give the same answer?
For any infinity (x) theres a larger infinity (2 raised to x) defining a new conceptual space (all points having the cardinality of 2 raised to x) where somewhere "new" hypotheses might hide.  15. Originally Posted by sigurdW  Originally Posted by AlexG no, because an infinitely small number of the possible hypotheses involve god
No, actually. If there are infinite hypothesis, then there are infinite hypothesis involving god. And if there are infinite hypothesis, one of them must be right, Therefore God exists. QED.

Infinite does not mean 'a really lot of' .

Anybody else want to give the same answer?
For any infinity (x) theres a larger infinity (2 raised to x) defining a new conceptual space (all points having the cardinality of 2 raised to x) where somewhere "new" hypotheses might hide.   16. Originally Posted by KALSTER  Originally Posted by sigurdW  Originally Posted by AlexG no, because an infinitely small number of the possible hypotheses involve god
No, actually. If there are infinite hypothesis, then there are infinite hypothesis involving god. And if there are infinite hypothesis, one of them must be right, Therefore God exists. QED.

Infinite does not mean 'a really lot of' .

Anybody else want to give the same answer?
For any infinity (x) theres a larger infinity (2 raised to x) defining a new conceptual space (all points having the cardinality of 2 raised to x) where somewhere "new" hypotheses might hide. Hello Kalster! Long time no seen.

I think your formula eloquently illuminates the poverty of the formalistic approach.
I resist formalisation and insist that any formula can by translated to everyday common english.
Some explanations of special interpretations of some terms may be necessary, (*)
but nevertheless I strongly insist in principle that there is in principle no untranslateable formula in principle!

Suddenly a Q dawns on me: Why is Kalster taking a brake from the all important question whether he should ban me for...?...eh...thats just it... He is,morally seen, a serious and consequent person:How come he is making up a formula to trap this virus into confusion? Just like Euler did with the russian dignitaries while visiting russia?

* Suppose you translate the following sWedish sentence into English: "Detta är på svenska".
Translated word by word it means: "This is in swedish"! Do you see a problem here?

PS One way to both annoy and delight me at the same time is to post
a generalized formula solving the problem Im trying to make you see.

Well... Euler the famous Mathematician was invited to Russia by Tsarevna Catharina.
The courtiers were "slightly irritaded" by the attention he got,
so it was decided on a contest of intellect. ( they would prefere slander as weapons...but...)

On the blackboard E wrote:
(a+b)2=(a2 +b2 +2ab) and said:
Donc Dieu Existe?

The following SILENCE was THUNDEROUS!
The courtiers looked everywhere for divine guidance.
In the end deciding on wise face and unisone nodding of heads.  17. Originally Posted by Strange  Originally Posted by ccoale427 Ah, I misunderstood -- my apologies. I think the OP was referring to what I stated though. I think his reasoning was along the lines that the probability of any one idea of god existing is which is in fact true, just not really "practical" since it requires an infinite sample size. (Of course, I disagree with the idea that there are actually an infinite number of "god concepts" to begin with.)
I agree completely. Because of those flaws, I wasn't sure if it was a serious argument or just a bit of a joke...

p.s. for learning/testing Latex, this is really useful: Online LaTeX Equation Editor - create, integrate and download
Hm, I think there could be an infinite number. Consider length - as length can, in theory be varied by infinitessimally small amounts, and keep increasing forever, you could just vary the creation story as follows:

"an invisible man in the sky created the universe, and he is 1.1cm tall"
"an invisible man in the sky created the universe, and he is 1.11cm tall"
"an invisible man in the sky created the universe, and he is 1.111cm tall"

I can think of one gaping flaw with my original argument though, but it is not what you suggested. Rather, it's the question of whether using probability is appropriate here at all. As there can only be one 'true' explanation of how everything got here, its 'probability' of being correct is therefore irrelevant - it just is correct. Whichever explanation is correct, is correct. If that explanation involves God, so be it.

My dad once gave me a half-assed version of Schroedinger's cat problem, where he said "ok, so imagine you have a box. There's a 50% chance that the cat inside it is dead. Therefore, without opening the box, you have a cat that is half dead". Whereas a half dead cat is an impossibility - it either is dead or isn't. This is the same sort of reasoning as what I originally said, imo  18. Mathesophical logic being applied to religion... interesting.  Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement