The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Axiomatical Argument for the Non-Existence of God by Zephyrous

Christians often proclaim that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three different manifestations of the same entity. They attempt to convey this idea by comparing it to the properties of Water and how it can alter it's appearance under certain circumstances, Solid, Liquid, and Gas.

While this comparison may seem lucid, reasonable, and profound upon face value. It is, upon closer inspection, illogical and inaccurate. So allow me to present you with a more precise, logical, and perceptible analogy of this concept.

To state that God is Jesus and Jesus is God, and that both of these entities are embodiments of the Holy Spirit is akin to claiming that the Square is a Circle, and that the Circle is a Square and that these two shapes are concurrent with one another.

While simultaneously declaring that the Square-Circle or Circle-Square coexist within the Triangle. To say that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are incarnations that originate from the same deity is parallel to asserting that the Square, Circle, and Triangle are incarnations that are derived from the same shape.

This of course violates the Laws of Logic, more specifically the Law of Identity which states that every object and/or entity that exists has particular characteristics that are assigned to it. For example, "Sand Paper is rough, abrasive, and flat" or the "book is thick, has 402 pages, and contains information."

The Laws of Logic are essentially derived from the axiom "Existence exists".

Identity is the concept that refers to the aspect of existence. The nature of existence must necessarily accede to the axiom "Existence exist" and also be something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot subsist outside of existence (i.e., be Aspatio and Atemporal) because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist inside the Natural Universe as something, and that means the entity in question must axiomatically exist with an identity.

Furthermore, the existence of God would also violate the Law of Noncontradiction, which states that the object and/or entity that exists must exist indepentdent of the qualities of something else. For instance, in order for A to be considered logically A, it must necessarily lack the characteristics of B.

In conclusion, it's impossible for God to exist because in order for he/she/it to exist it must necessarily be constrained by the Laws of Logic if it transcends Logic it, then God, by virtue of these axioms, does not exist. Since the Laws of Logic are only feasible within Nature.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Camilli on February 10, 2011 at 4:33am

What do you make of quantum entanglement experiements, where it can be demonstrated that two entangled quanta can affect each other instantaneously over any distance?

Typically the experiment involves two photons, but it can be done with fermions (matter particles) as well. If you are not familiar with the specifics, wikipedia has a fairly cogent explanation, but the only feasible conclusions from these experiments are that either superluminal speeds of infinite energy are possible (which contradicts relativity and thermodynamics) or that space does not exist as humans perceive it (which contradicts locality). It is likely the latter because the former not only requires infinites, but it requires the creation of those energies from nothing, which also destroys notions of causality.

But if it is the latter answer, and man's notion of space is mistaken, then the Law of Identities is also a mistake, and we cannot properly assign a specific identity to anything because nothing is truly discrete; everything is but a facet of one whole existence and cannot be accurately described as parts with specific qualia. This has the further complication of putting a stop to the progress of epistemology, the sure footing of which only goes as far as "existence exists" and "I exist because I am thinking, and thinking requires existence." Beyond that, no maxims would be self-proving and the rest of human "knowledge" is actually opinion; belief.

If the results of quantum entanglement are what scientists think they are, then a square, a circle and a triangle are all really the same thing, yet something about our perception only shows us parts of them at a time, so that we peceive one shape where there are many. How's that for confusing?