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 possible world. (3 and 4)
7) God is all-knowing.
8 ) God cannot create a less good world than another possible world. (6 and 7)
9) If no less good decisions exist, then the choice is the best possible choice.
10) God has to create the best possible world. (8 and 9)
11) God only created one world.
12) This is the best of all possible worlds. (5, 10, and 11)
(now to finish out an anti-theist argument, for kicks)
13) Better worlds are conceivable.
14) Contradiction between 12 and 13 means one or more premises are flawed.
15) Premises 1, 2, 9 and 13 are indubitable.
16) Therefore, one or more of the premises 4, 5, 7, and 11 must be flawed. (14 and 15)
17) Premises 4, 5, 7, and 11 are necessarily true assuming God exists.
18 ) God does not exist. (16 and 17)

Does the argument logically hold? What would have to be altered for it to hold?

Now, I think that most theists who disagree will question the indubitability of premises 1, 2, 9, and 13, which I assume in premise 16, and I will also be willing to defend those premises. Some will question the necessity of premise 11 to the theistic hypothesis, and I am willing to defend this as well.

(Note: for "world" I mean "universe". Strange, right? The issue is that Liebniz is known for claiming "this is the best of all possible worlds", and I want to follow in the prior wording, despite the fact that one could literally choose a word that is better when conversing with other audiences.)

Define better.

Funny. I seem to have said something about that. Also the assumption that what you define as good is good or what you think of as bad could not possibly affect things into an overall positive outcome later.

I don't agree. There is no need for god to create any world.

The argument is presupposing a set of possible worlds that can be ordered from best to worst. The notion is that there exists a world that can be considered "better" on such a hypothetical list.

Basically, you are questioning those premises as necessary. I am mostly aiming at attacking the traditional Judeo-Christian notion of God, which does have those premises as necessary.

As for your skepticism, I am simply ignoring it. As it stands, all that skepticism may do is attack a complete disproof, the issue is that I don't regard logical arguments as proving anything. Given that, skepticism only reduces the value of an argument, it doesn't refute most arguments, as, after all, we still live as if the skeptical arguments against all knowledge aren't true despite the fact that I still would argue that they remain unrefuted.

Well, you are right. The problem you identify is inconsequential though.

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 possible world. (3 and 4)
7) God is all-knowing.
8 ) God cannot create a less good world than another possible world. (6 and 7)
9) If no less good decisions exist, then the choice is the best possible choice.
10) If God creates a world, God has to create the best possible world. (8 and 9)
11) God only created one world.
12) This is the best of all possible worlds. (5, 10, and 11)
(now to finish out an anti-theist argument, for kicks)
13) Better worlds are conceivable.
14) Contradiction between 12 and 13 means one or more premises are flawed.
15) Premises 1, 2, 9 and 13 are indubitable.
16) Therefore, one or more of the premises 4, 5, 7, and 11 must be flawed. (14 and 15)
17) Premises 4, 5, 7, and 11 are necessarily true assuming God exists.
18 ) God does not exist. (16 and 17)

There has to be a criteria for better, though. You've provided no criteria.

Well, we can say that it is the "moral quality of the choice of the created world". Honestly, the issue you are getting at isn't just invoked in premise 13, but rather relates back to premises 1 and 2.

Actually, even this isn't true. In early Jewish faith, God was not a being of perfect good. He was, in fact, just God of everything, including what we define as evil. It's only later that God became perfectly good and Satan became the origin of all evil. There are still Judeo-Christian sects that follow this belief.

You've also yet to define or describe morality. The implication that there is a moral god only goes against certain religions. So, really, better and moral are both subjective terms that only fulfill the requirements of certain theistic sects.

Well, MrLoony, I can understand your point, but there is a model of God that is often considered the "Judeo-Christian" model of God, and it doesn't have to necessarily match the history or scriptures well, but rather it is a philosophical construct to avoid engaging other models of God, such as pantheistic gods, polytheistic gods, and other things.

As it stands though, the "later" includes Christian scriptures, and most (if not all) Christians do not have the God who is both good and evil.


skafather84, I don't have to define or describe morality for this argument. That would actually be a separate argument. Now, if I had to go through and define and describe every term taken as basic in this argument, then it would end at point 3423245289) God does not exist

Now, that's a hyperbole but still.

As for the "only certain religions objection"? Umm.... yes, premises 4, 5, and 7 make it clear the kind of God that I am going after. Notions of God that are not described by those premises are not disproven by the argument.

"Better and moral" both only relating to the requirements of certain theistic sects? Well.... yes. Your point? Just because I define God as something in the argument to be disproven, doesn't mean that what I define as God is equivalent to what all people ever will define as God.

If God is considered all powerful He controls everything since absolute power cannot be divorced from absolute responsibility. Good and evil therefore are totally His.

All powerful merely means "capable of all control", not exercising it.

Is God responsible for what happens in the world? Yes, to a great degree, as all evils that exist must be justifiable evils.

It is not proven that good and evil are totally is, however, one could attempt to infer it.

Not acting is also acting.

Maybe God created the whole universe in seven days, rested, then had a heart attack and died and no one knows where he's buried? Kind of like Moses who began life on a small ark on the Nile, led the Israelites to the Promised Land, died, was buried and no one knows where Moses is buried.

The idea of God certainly exists.

One only has to look in the dictionary and find the word God somewhere between the letters F and H.

God - the idea of God - is resurrected/comes to life every time a person thinks about the word God.

(Source: +FER)

Last edited by pgd on 01 Aug 2010, 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.