Argument against the existence of God

Post Reply New Topic

1) Choosing a kind of world to create is a moral decision.
2) A morally perfect being cannot knowingly choose something less good than another possible decision while maintaining moral goodness.
3) A morally perfect being cannot knowingly choose to create a less good world than another possible world. (1 and 2)
4) God is a morally perfect being.
5) God created this world.
6) God cannot knowingly choose to create a less good world than another possibly world world. (3 and 4)
7) God is all-knowing.
8 ) God cannot create a less good world than another possibly chosen world. (6 and 7)
9) God has all logically possible choices available to Him.
10) God cannot create a less good world than any other possible world (8 and 9)
11) If no better decisions exist, then the choice is the best possible choice.
12) If God creates a world, God has to create the best possible world. (10 and 11)
13) God only created one world.
14) This is the best of all possible worlds. (5, 12, and 13)
15) Better worlds are conceivable.
16) Contradiction between 14 and 15 means one or more premises are flawed.
17) Premises 1, 2, 11 and 15 are indubitable.
18 ) Therefore, one or more of the premises 4, 5, 7, 9 and 13 must be flawed. (16 and 17)
19) Premises 4, 5, 7, 9 and 13 are necessarily true assuming God exists.
20) God does not exist. (18 and 19)

Ok, improvement.

Ok, I edited part of it due to an error in the presentation of it.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 01 Aug 2010, 10:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I kind of agree with that, but the issue is that more needs to be added to have deductive muster.

1) There is no empirical evidence that suggests the existence of a god.

I agree in principle with the reasoning, though logically there are potential flaws.

It is premise 11 that I have the biggest issue with.
Under the many worlds hypothesis, every possible and conceivable world does exist.

Premise 1 is arguable, especially under the assumed premise that god defines and is the source of all morality, then he decides if that creation is a moral decision at all. That assumed premise comes from the judeo-christian definition of God, which is your primary target, as per your own words.

Premise 10 maybe should be "God created the potential for the best possible world" which could have the caveat that we screwed it up, though if the potential is there, and the MWH holds true, then some version of "we" didn't screw it up, and it does exist parallel to ours. (argument down this line also requires the assumption of libertarian free will though, which I know you refute.)

Lastly I'll state that morality is relative if there is no god, and it is absolute if there is "God" (in the judeo-christian sense) Given this, I don't really believe that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of god with a proof based on morality. Though perhaps by proving that morality is relative, one can indirectly prove that there CANNOT be a god (as opposed to that there IS NOT a god)

Actually, that only comes from divine command theory, which is separate but related.


Well, I could, BUT, I don't think I have to. You see, if even the way that the world works could be improved, then that still provides a reason.


Well, the issue is that the problem of evil is a similar proof. I think it is also good.

I agree with the claim that "God", aka, YHVH, aka, Allah, aka, Jehova doesn't exist. But that does not negate all potential for a god of some sort. Just eliminates most of our need to be concerned about it.

Sure, fine, then that works.

No, it wasn't after creation, it was when civilization, in general, realised that superstition is as dangerous as ridiculous.


Yes, we could say that God exist as an idea, as a concept, something that civilization needed historically in order to work, as we can gather that the belief in several gods existed prior to the one, the world accepts now.

I'd like to add that as for the arguments for God, it seems to me that it is difficult and perhaps impossible to argue succesfully in favor of a god without appealing to faith, emotional reasons and utility and that positions against God seem easier, I mean, I don't think I can play devil advocate, succesfully without falling for these, regarding this issue.