I may have found something interesting from a rational point of view, I'd like to know what I should do about this if anything.

P. Either(A) the God at the very origin of our world has an origin or (B)the God at the very origin of the world has no origin, meaning an infinite timeline without a start.

C1. If(A) the God at the very origin of the world has an origin, (C)some being or (D)something is at his origin. If(A) => C or D

C2. If(C) it’s some being, this one should be then called the God at the very origin of our world => Contradiction => !C

C3. If(D) it’s something, the God at the very origin of our world is nothing more than the result of an explainable process and so is not at the very origin of our world => Contradiction => !D

C4. !C and !D => !A

C5. If(B) the God at the very origin of the world has an infinite timeline without a start, he either (E)made the world as an unique point in his timeline or (F)the world has always existed. If(B) => E or F

C6. If(E) he made the world as an unique point in his timeline, we could then find that he created the world after an infinite amount of time, meaning never => Contradiction => !E

C7. If(F) the world has always existed, we can’t make a chronology between the world and the God at the very origin of our world but god needs to be situated in time before our world if he is at its very origin => Contradiction => !F

C8. !E and !F => !B

C9. !A and !B => !P. The God at the very origin of our world can’t have something else than an origin or no origin, therefore the God at the very origin of our world doesn’t exist.

From what I can see, it seems to show that logic disagrees with the existence of God. What do you think of it?

  • 2
    Premise (P) assumes that there is a God, because you name it, and that there is an origin of our world, because you assert it in both horns of the dilemma. Both implicit assumptions in the premise are debatable. Nov 10, 2022 at 10:32
  • 1
    A lot of arbitrary assumptions (not only P). More can be added: C.10. Time for God goes backwards, and God exists because it'll raise at the end of times, or C.10 God is such thing because God can create itself recursively.
    – RodolfoAP
    Nov 10, 2022 at 10:32
  • Your both C10 are beyond logic, time doesn't goes backward, only the present exists and God creating himself is insane. I'm only discussing the logic possibilities here.
    – Gab Daud
    Nov 10, 2022 at 10:37
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA the fact that God as the creator of our world exists implies the world have an origin.
    – Gab Daud
    Nov 10, 2022 at 10:41
  • 1
    C1 to C4 is just the old "who made God?" argument, which believers have been countering by special pleading "God is the only being who can make itself". C6 does not follow, figure an infinite straight line, wherever we are on the line there is an infinite length both behind and after us, but we are at a point on the line nonetheless. Then there is the usual special pleading "God is out of time". Believers are essentially playing Calvin ball, the rules bends when they need. you can't win on their own field.
    – armand
    Nov 10, 2022 at 23:54

1 Answer 1


It used to be a presumption in philosophy that one could establish the nature of reality thru reasoning. This is essential to the "ontological argument", as well as counterarguments using the same methodology. The limits to reasoning about our universe were forcefully articulated by Kant in his The Critique of Pure Reason, and since then, the value of rationalism to characterize our world has only declined even more than argued by Kant in philosophic thinking.

Ontological arguments are generally seen as self contradictory, and if not that, at least to rely upon unjustified assumptions. I.E. they cannot show the necessity of a God. And as those who deploy them are generally trying to argue for a specific God claim, which IS contingent -- they are off topic as well.

Your counterargument relies upon a variety of suspect assumptions. The most notable is that you deploy a partial form of the Munchausen Trilemma to try to claim that specific possible solutions to the cause of the universe violate "logic". Note, the Munchausen Trilemma applies to ALL possible explanations of our universe, not just to God explanations, and every one of its three legs violates our conventions on fallacies. Is the Münchhausen trilemma really a trilemma? Seeking an explanation for our world is the essence of the scientific project, and calling all possible outcomes of that project "fallacies" is -- not really a problem for science, but instead for the argument that we should not accept explanations.

Your argument also presumes that time must consist of presentism, combined with the logic version of time which is state sequencing. But presentism is an invalid model of time, as other answers have pointed out. Here is a summary of the critiques of all three of our time models: The passing of time

Additionally, a God COULD in principle exist outside of time. This is the most common theological assumption among monotheists. You presume that a God outside of OUR time, would still be subject to time-prime. A time-like logical state sequencing. And your argument relies upon this to rebut the "God out of time" answer. But time-prime is NOT accepted by eternalist God theology, so your rebuttal relative to a God fails on this point.

Finally, you presume that logic is absolute, that there is a "one true logic". But logicians have established that this is not so -- there are an infinity of logics. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/guide-to-logical-pluralism-for-nonlogicians/EDFDFA1C9EB65DB71848DABD6B12D877 An infinity of possible logics, means one cannot make a logic argument and have confidence it applies to our world. And the failure of classical logic with relation to causation, exemplified by the Munchausen Trilemma, strongly suggests that classical logic does NOT apply to our world!

What you do with your discovery is at your discretion. You seem interested in disproving theism, and there are a lot of theists who resort to ontological arguments to justify their views. And those arguments, while they all mostly suffer from the same assumption issues that your counterargument does, could be challenged by your counterargument. A savvy theist could resort to the "God out of time" ploy, which would allow them to reject your counter. All this, however is in the realm of motivated reasoning. if motivated reasoning is all you are really interested in, then this may be all you want to know. Your argument is a useful counter to many versions of ontological arguments. It can be blocked by God out of time, so you would need to come up with some other argument against that debate ploy.

If instead you are interested in philosophic investigation, and the philosophic method, your argument offers a very different value. The basic philosophic mindset is to try to identify, and challenge, the walls of the boxes we think within. Sometimes after challenging them, one will want to live with those walls, but sometimes not. This critique of your argument has identified major mental walls you are using, which are rationalism, invalidly selectively applying the Trilemma to reject science, assuming one known invalid model of time, and assuming One True Logic. Learning to question walls, and to live with porous "walls" to your thinking, and understanding how to do that, is the philosophic project. And your question is a potentially highly useful starting point in that project.

  • "Finally, you presume that logic is absolute, that there is a "one true logic". But logicians have established that this is not so -- there are an infinity of logics." I want to see where and how it is commonly established first and not some book. That seems beyond basic logic that rules are not universal if they are correct. For example mathematics: 1+1=2 the concept(not the writing) is universal
    – Gab Daud
    Nov 11, 2022 at 3:37
  • The God out of time relies on something beyond logic (God doesn't have a chronology in his acts or thoughts) and so kind of make my point that logic doesn't like God. The same applies for God making himself.
    – Gab Daud
    Nov 11, 2022 at 3:44
  • Now I must admit I didn't know the 3 potentials visions of time but I can't understand how Einstein model would discard the presentism. I can perfectly assume that time was created along with the 3 other dimensions when the Big Bang happened for example, the fact that the time doesn't go at the same speed depending on gravity/speed doesn't invalidate from my point of view that only the present exists.
    – Gab Daud
    Nov 11, 2022 at 3:50
  • @GabDaud -- linear arithmetic does not apply to everything in our universe. Put two drops of water together, and one will only have one drop. Put two rabbits together, and one will end up with dozens of rabbits. 1+1 does not always equal 2 in our world. Learn to look for the exceptions that break the bounds of the walls in your head, rather than seeking confirmations of their truth.
    – Dcleve
    Nov 11, 2022 at 4:24
  • @GabDaud -- a God that is not in time is perfectly logical, per classical logic. You are misusing the term, and misapplying "logic" simply to assumptions that you have never questioned.
    – Dcleve
    Nov 11, 2022 at 4:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .