Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By epidecus

Thread: quick logical proof that god doesn't exist

  1. #1 quick logical proof that god doesn't exist 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    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


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    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.


    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    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.
    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    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?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by StevePenk333 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by ccoale427; August 19th, 2012 at 11:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ccoale427 View Post
    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:
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ccoale427 View Post
    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...)
    Last edited by ccoale427; August 20th, 2012 at 03:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by ccoale427 View Post
    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
    ccoale427 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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.
    sigurdW likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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.

    EDIT: Perhaps our readers didnt read about that?
    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.
    Last edited by sigurdW; August 20th, 2012 at 08:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ccoale427 View Post
    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"

    ad infinitum.

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior epidecus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    268
    Mathesophical logic being applied to religion... interesting.
    sigurdW likes this.
    Dis muthufukka go hard. -Quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The constraints of logical consistency upon God.
    By mitchellmckain in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 16th, 2009, 11:19 PM
  2. Irresputable proof that god does not exist
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 12th, 2008, 08:37 PM
  3. All the proof you need that god does not exist...
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 11th, 2008, 08:48 AM
  4. PAST LIVES - A LOGICAL PROOF
    By harryschneider in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 5th, 2008, 09:34 AM
  5. The Most Logical God
    By Obviously in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 8th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Bookmarks
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
  •