Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

Argument non-existence handicapped god

Posted on: February 22, 2007 - 12:00am

Thandarr

Posts: 117

Joined: 2006-12-15

Offline

Argument non-existence handicapped god

I saw a proof of the non-existence of God somewhere on the Internet. I can't find it now and I'm way too dumb to figure out how to google it. It went something like this.

God is that greater than which nothing can be conceived.
A god who created the entire universe is pretty impressive, but
He's not as impressive as a God who could create the entire universe with one hand tied behind his back.
The greater the handicap, the greater the god. Eg. A god who created the universe while blindfolded, hogtied, with the Soundtrack from the Beverly Hillbillies playing at infinite volume in the background, and with a pit bull chewing on his genitals.
In fact, the greatest of all possble Gods is the one which could create the universe under the ultimate handicap. The ultimate handicap would be non-existence.

Q.E.D. That than which nothing greater can be conceived is a non-existent god.

I promise you, I am not creative enough to make this up. Okay, I did make up the extra handicaps. But not the formal proof. I know I saw it somewhere. But now I can't find it. It was maybe even on a thread here. Anyone got any ideas?

Thandarr

[email protected]

Posted on: February 22, 2007 - 2:14am #1

doctoro

Posts: 195

Joined: 2006-12-15

Offline

ROFL! That's

ROFL! That's fantastic.

This argument takes the premises of the "ontological argument" and reduces it to rubble.

I've always hated the ontological argument because it essentially tries to "define" something into existence. In other words, it defines words, creates a logical chain using those words, and somehow, presto, it's proven.

Santa Claus is male. That's a truth of language. Doesn't mean Santa exists for real.

Good find! I will remember this when I'm refuting the ontological argument next time.

I'm just going to past it from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

God is, by definition, a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).
Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind.
God must exist in reality, if God did not then God would not be that which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Posted on: February 22, 2007 - 10:28am #2

MattShizzle

Posts: 7966

Joined: 2006-03-31

Offline

It's in "The god Delusion"

It's in "The god Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Don't know where online.

Posted on: February 22, 2007 - 9:14pm #3

Thandarr

Posts: 117

Joined: 2006-12-15

Offline

Thank you, Matt

Thank you, Matt. I read that book and enjoyed it, but I guess it didn't all stick.

Anyway, later I swore I'd seen the argument somewhere but I couldn't get it off the Internet.

Maybe that's why.

Thandarr

[email protected]

Posted on: February 23, 2007 - 8:51pm #4

RhadTheGizmo

Posts: 1191

Joined: 2007-01-31

Offline

Quote: Q.E.D. That than

Quote:

Q.E.D. That than which nothing greater can be conceived is a non-existent god.

I believe the flow of this argument leads to a different conclusion than this.

It would rightly, in my opinion (of the argument, not of the validity of the point), stated:

"That than which nothing greater can be conceived is a non-existent god who created the universe."