A philosophical argument that disproves the existence of God.

[DetlefK]

I just made this up:



Premise 1: A thing as we imagine it is different in our fantasy than in real life.

Lemma 1: If it's in fantasy, it is different from its version in reality.

Premise 2: There is a version of God as we imagine him in our fantasy and a version of God in real life.

Lemma 1 combined with Premise 2 leads to Lemma 2: The imaginary version of God is different from the real-life version of God.

Premise 3: We can imagine the best-possible version of God because we are free to define the imaginary version of God in any way we desire.

Lemma 2 combined with Premise 3 leads to Lemma 3: If we imagine the best-possible version of God, the real-life version of God is not the best-possible version.

Premise 4: The best-possible version of God is the true version God, because God is perfect.

Lemma 3 combined with Premise 4 leads to Lemma 4: As the imaginary version of God is better than the real-life version of God, the imaginary version of God is the true version of God and the real-life version of God is not the true version of God.



Lemma 4 leads to the conclusion: God is imaginary.







If you accept the logic of this argument https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218268526 then you must also accept the logic of my argument.

My argument is exactly as logical as the argument in the other OP. (I know that my proof is incorrect, but let's see if the hobby-philosophers on this forum can spot the flaw. )

[Voltaire2]

1. You need to add in an idiot to bounce your

proof off of in imitation of a Socratic dialog.

[DetlefK]

2. I didn't have some straw when I wrote this.

[Voltaire2]

3. In all fairness Plato frequently used

fools to demonstrate how brilliant Socrates was.

They all end up muttering “yes Socrates”. Although the form was different. Generally it is the fools who start off from a position of knowledge and end up agreeing with Socrates that we know nothing.

[MineralMan]

7. I don't think you need literal straw.

Metaphorical straw should work just fine...

[DetlefK]

14. I didn't have metaphorical straw, man.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Somebody been rolling out the Ontological Argument again?

That never gets old.

1. Dracula is the greatest monster of all time.
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. Other monsters exist, and Dracula is greater than all of them.
4. Dracula exists.

1. Thor is the sexiest hunk of man-meat this side of the 60th parallel north.
2. It is sexier to exist than not to exist.
3. Other men exist, but Thor is sexier than all of them.
4. Thor exists.

1. The Loch Ness Monster is the greatest aquatic lifeform on Earth.
2. It is greater to exist than to not exist.
3. Other aquatic lifeforms exist, and Nessie beats the piss out of all of them.
4. The Loch Ness Monster exists.


Seriously, we could do this all fucking day.

[NeoGreen]

5. Could Thor...

...tame the Loch Ness Monster and ride it in an end-times battle against Dracula?

Should I pitch the screen play to Hollywood?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

8. Only if Dracula brings Ragnarok

And, yes, you should pitch it.

[NeoGreen]

9. I will get to work on that...

...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

10. I'd buy a ticket.

If nothing else, there's a comic book in that idea.

[Pope George Ringo II]

11. Considering what it is and how well it flies, it always reminds me of a moment from my youth.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. Isn't the shopowner the guy who played Adelai Niska in Firefly?

Hard to tell when he isn't torturing people to death.

[Pope George Ringo II]

13. Good eye.

It is indeed Michael Fairman.

[MineralMan]

6. First, you pose a dilemma, and then progress to a quadrilemma.

Now I can't decide.

[Pope George Ringo II]

15. What if we use any of the purported proofs of a god to instead prove "Eric The God-Eating Penguin"?

If the proofs are not valid, then they make no statement on god existing. But if they are valid, then Eric The God-Eating Penguin exists and ate the gods, so no god exists. QED.

[MineralMan]

16. Since those purported proofs are invalid, there is no point.

Better to demonstrate their lack of validity, I think.

In any case, such an undertaking is similar to herding cats, something that has been tried but that has always failed.

[Pope George Ringo II]

17. Obviously they're invalid

But if you're dealing with somebody stupid enough to think they're onto something, sometimes it's worth the entertainment value of using their flawed proof to demonstrate the exact opposite of what they think it proves.

Mostly, I just put those people on ignore, both here and in real life, but sometimes it's amusing to watch a self-destroying pinata at work.

[MineralMan]

18. Yes, well, that trick never seems to work.

Typically, the response is something like, "Well, MY god is real. Neener neener..."

Like you, I tend to ignore those people, except in places like this discussion area, where they put themselves forward to be contradicted, deliberately. I'm always happy to oblige.

Consider, though. If they all go away, there will be no reason to visit here, I think.

[Pope George Ringo II]

19. Also, in the name of complete transparency

I just find the idea of Eric The God-Eating Penguin to be hilarious.

[MineralMan]

20. I don't disagree.

Poor Eric, though. Deities have no real substance to them, so he'd have to eat a helluva lot of them just to survive, I'd think.

[Pope George Ringo II]

21. Poor us.

We create a helluva lot of them.