A Disproof of God's Existence: Sound or Unsound?
Premise (1)
If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy.
Premise (2)
If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows.
Premise (3)
If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.
Premise (4)
If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.
(5) God exists.
By hypothesis.
(6) .: God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy.
By (1) - (5).
(7) God does not exist.
By (5) & (6)
By Michael Martin
Sound
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Unsound
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
Given that the description is simply a digital translation of underpinning binary numbers of which are not functionally codified to produce recursive syntactic sound-waves; and assuming you are referencing that which you read and not heard; then this statement is manifestly nonsensical, imperceptive, witless, and soporific. Side: Sound
Definitions: /Feel - experience (an emotion or sensation) - /Know - have personal experience of (an emotion or situation) - /Lust - feel a strong desire for something - /Envy a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else's possessions, qualities, or luck. --- (I) To know what lust or envy feel like, one must by definition experience either feeling; (II) Experiencing lust or envy is a sinful act; (III) God is an all-knowing being who knows what both lust and envy feel like; (IV) Therefore, God has committed two sinful acts; (V) However, God, as per his nature, cannot (or will not) commit sinful acts; (VI) Yet, God, by his definition, has committed the foregoing acts; (VII) Therefore, logical improbabilities; gross misinterpretation of the Christian doctrine; false attribution (i.e. God is not all-knowing); God does not act in accordance with his nature; or, God is either hypocritical or/and malefic for setting imperatives that even he cannot follow. Side: Sound
|
1
point
The bible asserts that having feelings of lust and envy is sinful; but logically, God, a natura eius, has had such feelings since he knows what those feelings are, and how they feel. For God to know what lust and envy is, he would by necessity know what the two feelings feel like; to say God does not know of such feelings entails a lack of omniscience; and lacking omniscience is lacking Godliness. Side: Sound
1
point
Although I enjoyed reading that my question wasn't answered. Also, God knows many things. God knows how it feels to be pregnant, yet God has never been pregnant. God knows what it's like to overdose on a drug, but God hasn't done drugs. I don't think that knowing what "x" feels like necessarily means one also has done what it takes to feel "x" (X being the action or feeling). Side: Sound
Sorry....even though I admire your attempt to disprove God....since I am an atheist...your argument is flawed and disproves nothing. Flawed from the first statement. You say that God cannot have Lust or envy. Why? Who says? Also.....you say to know something you must experience it. Wrong. You can know that somebody else has certain emotions or character flaws or vices and not have to suffer from them yourself. As in the case of a therapist or psychiatrist with their patients. Or a loving parent with flawed or sick children. Also....the Yahweh God of the Torah certainly exuded many human-like emotions.....such as anger and jealousy and arrogance. Yet..this never stopped rabid fundamentalist Christians or Jews from believing and even worshipping that truly loathsome deity. Side: Unsound
To clarify: this is not my argument, which is evident in the description. You say that God cannot have Lust or envy. Why? Who says? According to the christian doctrine, merely feeling lustrous or envious is sinful; by God's nature, he wouldn't commit sinful acts. Job 31:11-12, "For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished. It is a devastating fire that destroys to hell. It would wipe out everything I own." Also.....you say to know something you must experience. Wrong. You can know that somebody else has certain emotions or character flaws or vices and not have to suffer from them yourself. As in the case of a therapist or psychiatrist with their patients. Nowhere in this argument does the writer claim "to know something you must experience it." To know what something feels like (in this case 'lust'), one must experience it, and to experience lust is to be sinful; God knows all, which means he knows what lust feels like; therefore, God has experienced lust, thus committing a sinful act which goes against his nature. Also....the Yahweh God of the Torah certainly exuded many human-like emotions.....such as anger and jealousy and arrogance. Yet..this never stopped rabid fundamentalist Christians or Jews from believing and even worshipping that truly loathsome deity. This is detracting from logical argumentation, which is the purpose for this debate. Side: Sound
1
point
Sorry....even though I admire your attempt to disprove God....since I am an atheist...your argument is flawed and disproves nothing. It seems like almost every attempt to disprove (and every attempt to prove) God is doomed to failure. You say that God cannot have Lust or envy. Why? Who says? The Greek gods most definitely feel lust and envy. The Hebrews believe their JHWH has the attributes of humans: he sits, stands, grows a beard, sleeps, tires, etc. probably derived from the attributes of the deities worshiped by the peoples they encountered throughout their unbelievably long history. The Christian God is less defined in that way, but still exhibits plenty of "undesirable" human traits. Yet..this never stopped rabid fundamentalist Christians or Jews from believing and even worshipping that truly loathsome deity. It is this loathsomeness that makes them worship him: were God not loathsome, he would not curse mankind to Hell for not exalting him. Were God not the kind of deity to curse mankind to Hell for not exalting him, mankind would have little reason to exalt him. Side: Unsound
1
point
Yes, I saw that you were thinking that. I got it down to as simple an objection as I could get, but I didn't get a response from Harvard, so I don't know if there is a good counter to it. Your pregnancy example is very good. That too, didn't get a proper response from Harvard. Side: Unsound
Here is what Michael Martin said about that objection: As I have already mentioned I am skeptical that philosophers have adequately characterized the ordinary notion of God and thus I am not sure that omnipotence is a property that most people predicate of God. But, in any case, as I understand the expression "He has known lust" it would be logically impossible for God to have known lust and not have had the feeling of lust. Presumably, even on the academic notion of God, God cannot do what is logically impossible. Side: Sound
The claim is that God knows how those feelings feel, and doing so necessitates experience. Even if one assumes that god only knows about sinful emotions, there is still the problem of god not knowing what it feels like to sin--which goes against his nature (namely, the notion that he is omniscient). Side: Sound
The claim is that God knows how those feelings feel, and doing so necessitates experience. You haven't provided any reason why it necessitates the experience. That is simply begging the question. I am asking you why he needs to experience those feelings in order to know what they feel like. Side: Sound
|
