Compelling Argument Against God

I'll formulate the argument as two syllogisms and then provide justification for the premises.

P1: If an entity is made of something then it is contingent on what it is made of.
P2: God is defined as a non-contingent entity.
C: God is not made of something.

Justification for P1: This is self-evident. Humans are made of cells and our existence is contingent (dependent) upon the prior existence of cells. At a lower level we are dependent upon the prior existence of molecules and atoms. And so on. Any entity which is composed of something is contingent upon the prior existence of that something, whatever it may be. They owe their existence to that something and are therefore contingent upon it.

Justification for P2: This is part of the standard definition for God. Non-contingent means not caused or dependent on anything. God is defined as being the creator of everything, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Supreme (non-contingent) being, the First Cause, the Prime Mover. If God were contingent on something then he would not be God.

P1: If God is not made of something then he (it) is indistinguishable from nothing.
P2: Nothing cannot have the property of existence.
C: God does not exist.

Justification for P1: This is self-evident. If there is no discernable difference between two things/concepts then they must be the same.

Justification for P2: This is self-evident. Applying the attribute of existence to nothingness is incoherent.

dee-em: What are quarks made of? Are you saying quarks do not exist?

admin: Quarks can be thought of as concentrated energy (like all matter). E = mc^2. Ultimately everything in the universe (including quarks) is contingent on the energy at the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang is not an entity, it does not affect my argument.

dee-em: Everything is contingent on energy. What is energy contingent on? See the problem?

Basically the argument is equivalent to the classic prime mover case but it's especially weak because it applies the same formal logic to physics ie what is God made of? Well that same regression works both ways. If energy is not an entity then God might not be an entity. Etc.

admin: Everything is contingent on energy. What is energy contingent on? See the problem?

No. I thought I had already answered the question. Energy is contingent on whatever "happened" at the Big Bang. I'm happy to state that I don't know what that was. So what? It could be that what we call energy is the positive equivalent of a negative energy (manifesting as gravity when energy is concentrated in matter) which exactly cancels it and it is all a zero-sum game. I don't know. However, the universe indisputably exists so the issue is moot.

Theists still have a problem. If my argument holds true then God does not exist. If my argument fails then it is possible for something to exist and not be contingent on what it is made of. Now apply this to the universe . What need then is there for God?

Basically the argument is equivalent to the classic prime mover case but it's especially weak because it applies the same formal logic to physics ie what is God made of? Well that same regression works both ways. If energy is not an entity then God might not be an entity. Etc.

If God is not an entity then he is not God. Surely?

Besides, you are assuming my position on energy. See above.

dee-em: I don't think there's any need for "God" but that doesn't inherently disprove God. I'd put the same case back to you: if we don't know how God is made does that mean God cannot exist? Ultimately there will be SOMETHING that exists but doesn't depend on something else. Otherwise you have an infinite regression.

It occurs to me that I should have specified the God I was refuting. The God which I am attempting to prove cannot exist is the intelligent entity responsible for creating the universe, ie. an intelligent creator being.

admin: I don't think there's any need for "God" but that doesn't inherently disprove God. I'd put the same case back to you: if we don't know how God is made does that mean God cannot exist?

I maintain that I have disproved the existence of God. In order to refute me you have to show that one of my premises is not valid. I haven't seen you do that. The issue is not that we don't know what God is made of but that he can't be made of anything.

Ultimately there will be SOMETHING that exists but doesn't depend on something else. Otherwise you have an infinite regression.

I'm content for that to be the universe by disproving the existence of God. What is the problem?

admin: Ultimately there will be SOMETHING that exists but doesn't depend on something else. Otherwise you have an infinite regression.

I used the word ENTITY rather than SOMETHING very deliberately. Are you still suggesting that God is not an entity because then you are not addressing my (theists) definition of God.

dee-em: Well so far I've attacked only the very first premise, that something that exists must be contingent. That's your first premise. So if something exists that doesn't depend on something else - the universe as you now claim - then you've just conceded your first premise isn't true. At least one thing exists that is not contingent.

dee-em: Well I'm not addressing it because I'm not a theist, so I think it's best left to interpretation. I'm more interested in the logic and morals of metaphysics.

admin: Well so far I've attacked only the very first premise, that something that exists must be contingent. That's your first premise.

That's not my first premise.

So if something exists that doesn't depend on something else - the universe as you now claim - then you've just conceded your first premise isn't true. At least one thing exists that is not contingent.

I'm sorry but I have made no commitment to whether the initial universe (Big Bang) is contingent or not. I'm fairly sure I have stated that we don't know. Apart from that you have misstated P1 which means you are arguing a strawman.

admin: Well I'm not addressing it because I'm not a theist, so I think it's best left to interpretation. I'm more interested in the logic and morals of metaphysics.

Metaphysics has logic and morals?

dee-em: I guess I see
If an entity is made of something then it is contingent on what it is made of.
As being equivalent because:
God, quarks and the universe are all entities
Your claim is that each is made of something
Your claim is that each one "is" (meaning, exists)
And your claim is that therefore they are contingent on this makeup

I'm fairly sure I have stated that we don't know.
If it is, then you still have a regression.
If it isn't, then you've disproven your own premise.
Either way the argument has a problem. It's either false or necessarily a regression.

admin: As being equivalent because:
God, quarks and the universe are all entities
Your claim is that each is made of something
Your claim is that each one "is" (meaning, exists)
And your claim is that therefore they are contingent on this makeup


As I said, the only way you can defeat a syllogism is to show that one of the premises fails. You aren't doing that. Instead you are trying to find a counter-example to show that the syllogism cannot be true. That is why we are going around and around in circles. This is a problem for two reasons. Firstly, you have to assume that the syllogism is true in order to show it can't be valid for the universe. I'm sure that that you can appreciate the contradiction inherent in such an approach. Secondly, P2 of the syllogism is specific to God. Only God is defined as non-contingent, not the universe or anything else. Therefore you can't invalidate the syllogism by going down that path. I have never asserted that the universe is non-contingent. I don't much care if it is. God however, cannot be contingent by definition.

If it is, then you still have a regression.
If it isn't, then you've disproven your own premise.
Either way the argument has a problem. It's either false or necessarily a regression.

No, regression stops at the Big Bang and the energy of it. Remember that the syllogism applies to entities.

entity
noun
noun: entity; plural noun: entities

a thing with distinct and independent existence.

I contend that the energy which arose from the Big Bang is not a thing. Neither is it made of anything. Energy is defined as the capacity of a physical system to perform work. As such, it is not a thing in itself. You can't isolate energy. It's okay for the universe to be contingent on energy. It is not okay for God to be contingent on energy or spirit or ectoplasm or anything else.

dee-em: More like an argument why one premise cannot be true. It doesn't even particularly matter what the uncontingent thing is - the point is that there must be something that is uncontingent. For instance you mentioned the Big Bang's energy earlier - from a science point of view I'd disagree there. But from a logical perspective it doesn't really matter because it runs into the same problem. If your case is that for some reason this cannot be defined as an entity, then perhaps it could be argued that if the energy of the universe at the Big Bang was not made of something it was indistinguishable from nothing and therefore did not exist either (your second syllogism).

There's no inherent contradiction in an approach where one can assume a point is true to show it is absurd. In fact that's a very common line of logical inquiry.
You say only God is non-contingent. Well, if only God is non-contingent and God doesn't exist, it follows nothing exists that is non-contingent. That's clearly not true because again, it creates an infinite regression. If on the other hand something - anything - is contingent then the whole argument fails. The argument strongly relies on the first premise being true in all cases or else, if exceptions can be made, God would be an obvious exception.

admin: More like an argument why one premise cannot be true.

I don't believe I have seen such an argument. Telling me that you worry about infinite regression has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of P1. That is just an appeal to consequences and I have already explained why I don't think infinite regress is involved anyway.

It doesn't even particularly matter what the uncontingent thing is - the point is that there must be something that is uncontingent.

I'm sorry but I just don't see how this relates to P1 which is specific to ENTITIES.

If your case is that for some reason this cannot be defined as an entity, then perhaps it could be argued that if the energy of the universe at the Big Bang was not made of something it was indistinguishable from nothing and therefore did not exist either (your second syllogism).

You would have a point if the second syllogism was about SOMETHING. Unfortunately it is about an ENTITY, specifically God. We have already covered this ground.

There's no inherent contradiction in an approach where one can assume a point is true to show it is absurd.

Sure, but you haven't done that. Instead you have chosen to ignore P2 in the first syllogism and go off on a wild goose chase.

You say only God is non-contingent.

No. I say that is how theists define him.

Well, if only God is non-contingent and God doesn't exist, it follows nothing exists that is non-contingent.

No. It follows that no ENTITY exists which is non-contingent. I have no problem with that.

The argument strongly relies on the first premise being true in all cases or else, if exceptions can be made, God would be an obvious exception.

Where have I allowed for an exception, when I refer specifically to ENTITIES?

dee-em: I think you're playing semantics because you and I have a different definition of a thing. Let me rephrase a critical part of my last post to satisfy you.

It doesn't even particularly matter what the uncontingent entity is - the point is that there must be some entity that is uncontingent. For instance you mentioned the Big Bang's energy earlier - from a science point of view I'd disagree there. But from a logical perspective it doesn't really matter because it runs into the same problem. If your case is that for some reason this cannot be defined as an entity, then perhaps it could be argued that if the energy of the universe at the Big Bang was not made of some entity it was indistinguishable from nothing and therefore did not exist either (your second syllogism).

There's no inherent contradiction in an approach where one can assume a point is true to show it is absurd. In fact that's a very common line of logical inquiry.
You say only God is non-contingent. Well, if only God is non-contingent and God doesn't exist, it follows nothing exists that is non-contingent. That's clearly not true because again, it creates an infinite regression. If on the other hand some entity - anything - is contingent then the whole argument fails. The argument strongly relies on the first premise being true in all cases or else, if exceptions can be made, God would be an obvious exception.

Explain why God must be characterised as an entity but not whatever you define as uncontingent ie the energy at the so-called Big Bang?

admin: Explain why God must be characterised as an entity but not whatever you define as uncontingent ie the energy at the so-called Big Bang?

I already have. I gave you the definition of the word "entity" in a previous post and then gave you my thoughts on why energy isn't an entity.

It doesn't even particularly matter what the uncontingent entity is - the point is that there must be some entity that is uncontingent.

Why? You are only asserting it. Besides it still has nothing directly to do with my syllogisms.

dee-em: Because otherwise you'd have a contingent entity forever into infinity (not even a circular contingency would satisfy the logical conditions of your argument). That's not possible because infinity is not a number, it's a direction. So you can't have "infinite" anything.

I gave you the definition of the word "entity" in a previous post and then gave you my thoughts on why energy isn't an entity.
It sounds increasingly like you're defining God out of existence then. You've provided definitions based on your own views - that God has no contingency, is distinct and independent, and that energy is not distinct or independent, but also has no contingency. What you need to show is that being distinct and independent proves you have to be contingent. Your argument was that otherwise it would be indistinguishable from nothing. However energy doesn't meet that criterion in your view, since energy is not nothing. It all comes back to that initial premise and I'm having a hard time establishing what exactly your standard is here, because reading this, I'm certain it has shifted at least twice.