Is this a good argument against God's existence?

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Is this a good argument against God's existence?

Argument for Atheism
P1: God is non-physical.
P2: God has a mind.
P3: Non-physical entities cannot include physical processes, or they would cease to be non-physical.
P4: Information processing requires physical processes, i.e. expenditure of energy.
P5: Mind requires information processing.
C1: Therefore, God cannot exist.


Are the premises self-evident, or do any require justification?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Well...Quote:P1: God is

 Well...

Quote:
P1: God is non-physical.

Just to be pedantic, this only disqualifies some gods.

Quote:
P2: God has a mind.

Again... you're going to get some resistance to this.  Of course, you're perfectly justified in asking how a being can "think" without a "mind," but what I'm getting at is that you've got a lot of undefined terms, and theists will exploit that fact while continuing to leave their own undefined terms.

Quote:
P3: Non-physical entities cannot include physical processes, or they would cease to be non-physical.

You're going to have to be more specific here.  In other words, you need to demonstrate that the non-physical (whatever that is... DEFINITIONS!!) cannot replicate physical processes in a non-physical way.

Quote:
P4: Information processing requires physical processes, i.e. expenditure of energy.

It's a bold claim without further backing.  Why?

Quote:
P5: Mind requires information processing.

I'm pretty much ok with this.  Mind being an information processing device by definition.

Quote:
C1: Therefore, God cannot exist.

Honestly, you're going to get ripped to shreds.  You have too many undefined terms.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
On the other hand, theists

On the other hand, theists love undefined or vague terms, it is where their god hides. There's a catch though, they insist they are the ones that get to assert the undefined terms.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:On the other

KSMB wrote:

On the other hand, theists love undefined or vague terms, it is where their god hides. There's a catch though, they insist they are the ones that get to assert the undefined terms.

 

Not really.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

kinslayer421 wrote:

Argument for Atheism
P1: God is non-physical.
P2: God has a mind.
P3: Non-physical entities cannot include physical processes, or they would cease to be non-physical.
P4: Information processing requires physical processes, i.e. expenditure of energy.
P5: Mind requires information processing.
C1: Therefore, God cannot exist.


Are the premises self-evident, or do any require justification?

 

I would get rid of the first two premises, because they contradict the conclusion.  Premise three is not self-evident to me.  It might be possible for a non-physical entity to contain some physical processes.  This premise is almost true by definition.  Premise four is not self-evident to me.  It might be possible for non-physical entities to process information.  I agree with Hambydammit that premise five is true by definition.

The conclusion is on shaky ground.  I don't know of a sound argument that "God cannot exist." 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Not really.I

Ciarin wrote:
Not really.

I beg your pardon. My above statement does not apply to the pagans, who just believe in weird shit.


kinslayer421 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Ok, thanks for the

 Ok, thanks for the replies.  I see how the first two premises contradict the conclusion.  I really just included those to define what type of "God" I was talking about.  I wasn't trying to argue against physical or mindless Gods.

Thanks for pointing out the other errors and weak points.  I'm just starting to study logic so I figured I would make many mistakes at first.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Ciarin wrote:Not

KSMB wrote:

Ciarin wrote:
Not really.

I beg your pardon. My above statement does not apply to the pagans, who just believe in awesome shit.

 

Fixed.