1

God has attributes:

  • Omnipotent
  • Righteousness
  • Eternity
  • Goodness

Etc...

All of them in his maximum expression.

Man has the negation of all that attributes in his maximum expression.

Therefore, man is the negation of God.

Man exists.

So, being Man the negation of God, God doesn't exists.

Is this correct?

  • The assumption that Man has the negation of all those attributes sounds like it might not be true. Also the conclusion might be that Man doesn't exist. Perhaps I don't understand the argument. – Frank Hubeny Feb 28 at 13:10
  • "Is this correct?" Obviously NOT. When you say that "man has the negation of all that attributes in his maximum expression" do you mean that man has the "contrary attributes" (i.e. not-eternity, etc.) or that man has in a less-than maximum expression ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 28 at 13:22
  • 1
    You are moving back-and-fort between concepts (that you are trying to define) and existing objects. Assuming that the concept Man is defined as the negation of the concept God (i.e. Man=not-God) from the fact that the concept Man is istantiated (i.e. exist in the world "objects" exemplifying that concept) it does not follow that the "contrary" concept cannot be. Consider Even and Odd: obviously Odd=not-Even, but we have Even(2) and Odd(3). – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 28 at 13:26
  • If we measure the degree of an attribute from 1 to 10, being 10 the maximum, the negation of something containing attribute 10 is that it contains an attribute less than 10. Anyway, the intention of the question is that if we assume that existence is a part of essence, one could arrive to this conclusion about the non existence of God. The argument about that man has all the negations of God attributes is inductive. – Carlitos_30 Feb 28 at 14:10
  • Existence is part of of essence only for God, not for Man. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 28 at 14:53
1

Although I am an atheist myself, I see that your reasoning lacks something here.

Let I denote having a set of all possible infinite "good" properties like (omnipotent, omniscient, omni-add-anything-here).

And let not-E denote non-existence, (~E).

What I understand from your first premise, is that the infinite attributes belong to the set I.

And I assert (and you probably agree) that non-existence is not an infinite attribute, for something to not exist, it does not have to be infinitely non-existent (omni-non-existent does not mean anything to me, since I do not agree that a non-existent can be predicated by omni.., non-existent beings cannot be predicated at all.)

Check this for more about predication of non-existent beings :

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/#ProFicDis

Premise 1: (x)(Ix ↔ Gx)

Means: for all x, x has a set of infinitely good attributes if and only if x is God.

It is a biconditional (note the " ↔ " or if and only if), since it goes both ways. If x has infinitely good attributes then x is God, and if x is God then x has infinitely good attributes.

Premise 2: (x)(~Ex → ~Ix)

Means: for all x, if x does not exist, then x does not have all possible infinitely good attributes , since non existence is a bad attribute and it is not infinite, you cannot infinitely not exist. (if you do not exist, you cannot be predicated by infinitely or omni..) , And I think you may argue with this one.

Premise 3: (x)(y)(Nxy → (Ix → ~Iy))

Means: for all x and all y, if x is the negation of y, then: if x has all possible infinitely good attributes, then y has not all infinitely good attributes.

But you can check that, indeed, the three premises do not suffice to necessarily reach the conclusion: (x)(Gx → ~Ex), (for all x, if x is God then x does not exist):

  • Premise 1: (x)(Ix ↔ Gx)
  • Premise 2: (x)(~Ex → ~Ix)
  • Premise 3: (x)(y)(Nxy → (Ix → ~Iy))
  • Conclusion : (x)(Gx → ~Ex) [this does not necessarily follow ]

So, you may need more premises.

Note:

That, or you have to change this premise : Man has the negation of all that attributes in his maximum expression.

To:

Man has the negation of all attributes of God

Because the "maximum expression" means that man only negates attributes that are infinite, not attributes that are finite.

So, if God does not exist, and if non-existence is not a maximally expressed attribute, then Man does not necessarily negate this attribute.

And if man's attribute E does not necessarily negate the truth value of God's attribute E .. Then it follows that if E is true for humans, that does not necessarily make E the opposite (false).

And if man exists, then it does not necessarily follow that God does not exist, unless you change that second premise.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.