1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

(Reference: Gasking's Proof', Analysis Vol 60, No 4 (2000), pp. 368-70.)

What do you guys think of this then? I love it, but I don't agree with it for reasons I won't disclose because I want to see what you guys think first.

How is not existing a disability? That wouldn't make sense because the disability has to act on something, but if god doesn't exist then the disability doesn't exist.

Also, why did that person assume that god had to have a disability?

I assume not existing is a disability because you cannot perform acts if you don't exist. God therefore performed acts whilst not existing, which is illogical and is therefore a disability as the illogical is impossible.

EDIT: God is defined as "than which nothing greater can be conceived" so he is saying that a God that doesn't exist is more perfect than one which does because He would be more powerful for the above reasons. Therefore the supreme being doesn't exist.

[This message has been edited by Aphelion Corona (edited 01-23-2005).]

or you can believe what i believe:

we are a failed experiment of god. we turned out shitty, and he left.

edit: so basically you're saying that god created earth, yet does not exist, correct?

[This message has been edited by HandicapParking (edited 01-23-2005).]

A creation necessitates a creator. Thus, if the creator does not exist, regardless of whether or not non-existence is a disability, the creation would follow suit in its nonexistence.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore God does not exist.

(Reference: Gasking's Proof', Analysis Vol 60, No 4 (2000), pp. 368-70.)

What do you guys think of this then? I love it, but I don't agree with it for reasons I won't disclose because I want to see what you guys think first.



I just woke up, and my eye balls are still stretching, but at first glance you missed a few of things, first in 2a, you need an observer of the intristic quallity. And in 2b, does your

"(b) the ability of its creator." take into account omnipotence... which is infinity. And in #3, i would think that it should be: "The greater the differnece between the observer and the creator, the more impressive the achievement." but that would only go so far, as i doubt if an ant would find intrinsic qualities in, say.. the Taj Mahol (sp?). In other words, the observer could not be grossly, mentally handicapped. You know, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. So the greater the mental capacity, the greater the intrinsic value.. "God saw that it was good.."

I would think that the way you have your statements, #6 should say: "6. Therefore the universe does not exist."

Time for a pot of coffee, breakfast and a shower... went to bed early, but slept til noon... i hate wasting the weekend, and especially missing church cuz i over slept

This is similar to the ontological argument, which says that if we can conceive of a perfect being, for it to be perfect the being must exist in our minds, as well as reality. David Hume took a shot at this one claiming that existence isn't a quality of perfection; which also comes into play here, interestingly enough. Just to play Devil's advocate a little...

Personally, I believe that unexistence contridicted itself, so it became a thought. This thought replecated itself and filled the void of nothingness with just that, thought. We live in a dream, we only percieve it to be reality. Nothing is impossible. We are what we imagine ourselves to be. If we simply believe there is no gravity, we will float around. But the perception that this is a reality makes the ability to sway our belief in gravity almost impossible. The belief in god allowed way for there to be a god, but in the mass belief system, any faith, or just the idea of a belief in god will allow you to be in a word, 'good'. IF there is a god, he/she would understand this, and not want any faith in god to remove itself, because that would lead to the destruction of god.

[/RAMBLING]

This is, of course, assuming that you believe that the creation of earth is, in fact, the greatest achievement -- which I don't.

-korova

quote: 3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

I'm not sure i agree with this.

The senario of the world being created by something that can't exist is nothing but confusing. I confess myself confused.

If with non-existence he can not only create, but do everything an existing being such as himself could do, then there would be no difference between existence and non-existence. Non-existence then, ceases to be a disability.

Well done totse! You have managed to raise every famous criticism and some i've never heard before about this guy's thesis.

This is some really impressive stuff from a bunch of guys who hang around all day talking about God...

It assumes too much. It assumes that the universe is an achievement, it assumes that handicaps = greater achievement.

It fails logically because if the universe has an infinite quality, even if the creator's ability is 0 (non-existent), the universe is still an infinitely great accomplishment.

I think that you are saying God can only be what human thinking limits Him to, and therefore, this theory is intrinsically clever and revolutionary.

However, God is who He is, and does what He does, without our knowledge, permission, or explanation.

quote:Originally posted by HandicapParking:

or you can believe what i believe:

we are a failed experiment of god. we turned out shitty, and he left.

edit: so basically you're saying that god created earth, yet does not exist, correct?



If He created us, and we turned out to be a failure, He would logically start over, or simply annihilate us.

This view also suggests that God is capable of failure, or incapable of adapting to failure, or that He didn't anticipate failure.

Think about that.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

I'm not sure i agree with this.

It's the measure by which man marks achievement, not God.

If anything, we ARE His handicap. *lol*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If He created us, and we turned out to be a failure, He would logically start over, or simply annihilate us.

This view also suggests that God is capable of failure, or incapable of adapting to failure, or that He didn't anticipate failure.

Think about that.



Great answer!! Thanks Digital. This was one that had me stumped and was hoping no one would asked me or pose this to me.