A New(?) Proof that God Does Not Exist

[Skeptic]

Heaven as an Argument Against God’s Existence--an article I am writing...

Abstract. The argument from evil against God’s existence is usually answered either by the “best of all possible worlds� or by the “free will� argument. These arguments, in return, are usually answered by showing their weakness when one considers in detail the state of our imperfect world. I wish to argue that a more thorough refutation of both these arguments can be seen by looking at the perfect world—heaven—theists accept.

One of the most famous arguments against God’s existence is the well known “problem of evil�: God is omnipotent; God is good; yet there is evil (or suffering) in the world. Ergo, either God is not omnipotent or he is not (completely) good.

This argument goes back to Epicurus, and is usually answered by theists in one of two possible ways. First, one can claim—with Leibniz—that pain and suffering notwithstanding, this is at least the best of all possible worlds. Second, one can claim that man has—and must have—free will to choose both good and evil, therefore, man—not God—creates evil, or at least moral evil, i.e., sin. (Note that the latter does not require that this world be either the best possible world or the best possible world with free will.)

On the other hand—and partially in order to mitigate this problem—believers typically accept the existence of heaven, a place where one’s soul goes after death to enjoy infinite bliss. What heaven is like is described in an astonishing variety of ways, but in the vast majority of cases it is perfect, totally lacking in both natural and moral evil.

Paradoxically, it is precisely heaven—not the natural world and not even hell—which undermines both the ‘free will’ and the ‘best of possible worlds’ retorts to the problem of evil. At the risk of being accused of “beating a dead God�, I would like to explain why this is the case.

The existence of heaven is an obvious problem for the ‘best of all possible worlds’ defense. In the most general terms, the existence of heavens poses the following puzzle: heaven exists; it is better than this world; yet this world is supposed to be the best of all possible worlds. This is a contradiction, since—obviously—if heaven exists, it is also a possible world better than our own. So either heaven does not exist, or it is not better than the actual world, or this world is not the best of all possible worlds.

This seems to be an open-and-shut case against the “this world is the best of all possible worlds� scenario, unless one is willing to deny the existence of heaven, or to deny that heaven is better than the actual world—e.g., that the saints are punished after death, as well as the sinners. Both of these claims have rather obvious disastrous implications to Judeo-Christian religious dogma, the one we are dealing with here.

There way to avoid this problem is, as said above, to argue that for some very good reason, God decided to create on earth not the best possible world, but only a world that has some property P which God considers crucial in his infinite wisdom. Far and away the most popular opinion Iis that P is free will: man should (for some reason) have the ability to sin. Here, too, however, heaven creates a counterexample. The question to consider is: is there free will (the ability to sin) in heaven?

There are two choices: either the souls have free will in heaven, or they do not. If they do not, the free-will promoter is in a trap. On the one hand, he claims that free will is such an all-important quality for humanity that God considered all the horrors it caused through evil a good enough price to pay. On the other hand, he cannot really claim that having free will makes the actual world better than heaven because it allows free will, for the reasons above.

Be that as it may, the main positive argument against the existence of free will in heaven is that disembodied souls lack the ability to sin—sin being the product of the imperfect body. This seems, however, to fly in the face of the entire concept of sin in Christian theology. When the priest absolves you, he cleanses your soul of sin, for instance; one is warned is not to have a sinning soul at death, for that soul would be punished. While it still might be that the soul is only able to sin when connected to the body (in the same way that I can only move at 500 mph when sitting in a plane and not on my own), this, too, doesn’t ring true with tradition. The souls in hell in Dante’s Inferno, for instance, are at least capable of the sin of blasphemy; and Satan himself is supposed to have originally been a perfect being in heaven. If he could sin, why not the human souls there?

On the other hand, if there is free will in heaven, the question is whether or not there is evil there as well. This is not an obvious issue, for free will merely implies that one has the ability to sin; it does not imply that one will or does in fact sin. Consider a certain coin that is tossed, say, 1,000 times. The coin might very have the ability to land “heads� on each of those tosses—due to its symmetrical structure, the coin tossing procedure giving it enough angular momentum, etc.—but simply happen to land “tails� every time.

If there is sin in heaven (as opposed to mere free will) then is possible, for instance, that those in heaven will choose once more to rebel against God and be cast to hell for all eternity, a recreation of “Paradise Lost�. This seems odd. It certainly doesn’t fit with most descriptions of heaven as commonly understood.

The other possibility is that souls do have free will but do not sin, much like a tossed coin might have the ability to land ‘heads’ and ‘tails’ but just happens to land ‘heads’ every time. Another way to look at it is in terms of “possible heavens�: every time a soul in heaven is encountered with the choice of either sinning or not sinning, there are two possibilities, for it has free will: it will either sin or not. Heaven is the logically possible world where all the souls simply happen to choose not to sin in all cases.

But if that is the case, it begs the question: why isn’t earth like that as well? There is nothing in this discussion of free will in heaven that hinges on the fact that we are dealing with incorporeal souls, as long as (as we assume) they have free will. There also exists a logically possible world where all living persons simply choose not to sin every time they are faced with such a choice. So it seems that the very same argument that is necessary to save free will for heaven without allowing sin would, mutates mutandis, work on earth as well.

In summary, heaven seems a direct refutation of the claim that this is the best of all possible worlds, and an indirect one of the idea that free will explains evil on earth.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Who says there's a heaven?

(Oh, you're providing proof against a Christian god. Well, that leaves several thousand more to go. :D)

[Batman Jr.]

I posted the same argument on the "Critical Thinking" forum awhile back. Other people have come to the same conclusion even before me though.

Somehow, my post got corrupted and is now interspersed with unwanted question marks, but it's still legible: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42893&highlight=heaven

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Heaven as an Argument Against God’s Existence--an article I am writing...
Interesting. :) I am working on a logical argument that not only do no gods exist, but that no god can exist... by definition. :)

[arthwollipot]

I'd like to see that when it's finished.

[Vortex]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
I'd like to see that when it's finished.
I'm close. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Vortex

Interesting. :) I am working on a logical argument that not only do no gods exist, but that no god can exist... by definition. :) Yes, but what is logic, and where does it come from? ... a universe completely devoid of structure perhaps? Indeed, what is logical about something that comes from nothing or, something that comes from something which doesn't mean anything? So, if there was just one thing that was pre-existent over everything else, that would have to be logic don't you think? Yet if that were true, we find ourselves in the position where we have to ask, what is logic without the mind that entertains it? In which case we are left to conclude that logic has always existed, as part of a pre-existent mind or, it hasn't. And if it hasn't, we can only conclude that it was something that came about "after the fact." In which case what are we doing basing anything upon that which was never existent in the first place? ;)

[arthwollipot]

*groan*

I hate epistemology. It makes my head hurt.

[Z]

It's best just to ignore Iacchus. Most of us do. He rarely says anything even remotely relevant, so you won't miss much.

Iacchus, been to a good therapist yet? Still afraid the demons in your brain might eat you in your dreams?

:dl:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

It's best just to ignore Iacchus. Most of us do. He rarely says anything even remotely relevant, so you won't miss much.

Iacchus, been to a good therapist yet? Still afraid the demons in your brain might eat you in your dreams?

:dl: So, would you suggest these demons are strictly immaterial then?

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, would you suggest these demons are strictly immaterial then?

Certainly not. The idea of demons exists within your brain as a series of biochemical processes. The demons themselves do not exist at all. Demons are not immaterial - they are non-existant. The idea of demons is existant, as material processes within the brain as well as symbology stored on a variety of media.

[geni]

The argument makes the rather odd assumption that it is posible to understand and apply our logic to an all powerful and all knowing being. The rules of logic don't apply to an all powerful being.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Certainly not. The idea of demons exists within your brain as a series of biochemical processes. The demons themselves do not exist at all. Demons are not immaterial - they are non-existant. The idea of demons is existant, as material processes within the brain as well as symbology stored on a variety of media. That explains it then. We're nothing more than walking bio-chemical processes. And of course having said that, what is evil? Just a bad case of indigestion, huh?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Paradoxically, it is precisely heaven—not the natural world and not even hell—which undermines both the ‘free will’ and the ‘best of possible worlds’ retorts to the problem of evil. At the risk of being accused of “beating a dead God�, I would like to explain why this is the case. Transistor theory. You can get it to operate at either end of the spectrum (either positive or negative) and it still continues to oscillate ... i.e., where its oscillation represents "free will" at either end of the spectrum.

[C.J.]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The existence of heaven is an obvious problem for the ‘best of all possible worlds’ defense. In the most general terms, the existence of heavens poses the following puzzle: heaven exists; it is better than this world; yet this world is supposed to be the best of all possible worlds. This is a contradiction, since—obviously—if heaven exists, it is also a possible world better than our own. So either heaven does not exist, or it is not better than the actual world, or this world is not the best of all possible worlds. (emphasis added)

This part I noted is where I see a problem with your argument. In defining heaven (should it exist) as a "possible world better than our own" you are placing Heaven and Earth on the same dimension, assuming a quantatative difference between the two with Heaven defining a best of all possible worlds endpoint. I would expect many, if not most, believers who buy into the "best of all possible worlds" logic to argue that Heaven is qualitatively different from Earth. Essentially, your argument is that Earth cannot be the best of all possible apples because of the existence of Heaven, while the believer would argue Earth can be the best of all possible apples, because Heaven is an orange.

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That explains it then. We're nothing more than walking bio-chemical processes. And of course having said that, what is evil? Just a bad case of indigestion, huh?

No evil, no good. Just actions.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

No evil, no good. Just actions. No need to refute or interpret then, huh? What do you need a brain for then? Would you deny the experience of rage, together with the experience of intimacy you have with your girlfriend? Or, is yours just the means of concealing the interpretation?

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No need to refute or interpret then, huh? What do you need a brain for then? Would you deny the experience of rage, together with the experience of intimacy you have with your girlfriend? Or, is yours just the means of concealing the interpretation?

Without a brain, the body cannot function. A complex organism needs a complex processor to survive and thrive. Now, rage coupled with intimacy with my girlfriend? I've never experience rage WITH that experience - not my cup of tea, baby. But rage is a simple survival technique; so is sex. That we 'enjoy' recreational 'sex' just lets us bond to create a more survivable family unit to support our helpless, big-headed offspring longer.

Interpretation and refutation is all part of the survival and reproductive process.

Not to offend, but the purpose of life is to get laid and live to tell about it... period. So I guess there is good and evil after all - evil is not fulfilling your purpose.

I guess Iacchus is evil, then.

:dl:

Actually, Iacchus, 'good' and 'evil' are all subjective, purely malleable terms. What is good to one person is evil to another. It's all part of the biochemistry. Simple as pie.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by geni
The argument makes the rather odd assumption that it is posible to understand and apply our logic to an all powerful and all knowing being. The rules of logic don't apply to an all powerful being.

They certainly do. The laws of PHYSICS might not apply to all-powerful beings, of course, but LOGIC--what is true in all possible worlds--does. This is what makes logic logic, after all.

In any case my point is not to attack so much God's existence per se, but two famous logical arguments for it, namely, the argument from free will and from best of all possible worlds ones.

[Skeptic]

This part I noted is where I see a problem with your argument. In defining heaven (should it exist) as a "possible world better than our own" you are placing Heaven and Earth on the same dimension, assuming a quantatative difference between the two with Heaven defining a best of all possible worlds endpoint. I would expect many, if not most, believers who buy into the "best of all possible worlds" logic to argue that Heaven is qualitatively different from Earth. Essentially, your argument is that Earth cannot be the best of all possible apples because of the existence of Heaven, while the believer would argue Earth can be the best of all possible apples, because Heaven is an orange.

First, thanks for the thoughtful comment--I was thinking along these lines...

The problem with this (which indeed is probably the most common believer's response) is that (formally speaking) if earth is possible world E and heaven possible world H out of a set of possible worlds P, then what is the relation between them in terms of "goodness"--that is, is P fully or only partially ordered in that respect?

If P is fully ordered, than either E is less than H, or H than E, andd, in both cases, we have a problem (as I said above). However, if neither is the case--E and H are incomparable--then one finds it hard to imagine in what sense is it a good thing to go to heaven. Isn't the whole point of heaven that it is supposed to be far, far superior to this vale of tears?

By the way, a terminological issue: my use of "possible worlds" is a bit sloppy. Formally speaking, one should consider earth and heaven and hell and purgatory (E+HV+HE+P) as ONE logically possible world, and the world with earth being LIKE heaven (HV+HV+HE+P, or something similar) as another possible world. But it seems to me that the argument "goes through" in the same manner in both cases.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Without a brain, the body cannot function. A complex organism needs a complex processor to survive and thrive. Neither could the interpretive nature of the mind.


Now, rage coupled with intimacy with my girlfriend? I've never experience rage WITH that experience - not my cup of tea, baby. Am merely asking if you would deny the experience of either.


But rage is a simple survival technique; so is sex. That we 'enjoy' recreational 'sex' just lets us bond to create a more survivable family unit to support our helpless, big-headed offspring longer.

Interpretation and refutation is all part of the survival and reproductive process.Bacteria don't need "big brains" in order to survive. What's the difference between bacteria and us then?


Not to offend, but the purpose of life is to get laid and live to tell about it... period. So I guess there is good and evil after all - evil is not fulfilling your purpose.And by purpose are you referring to selfishness here?


I guess Iacchus is evil, then.What, in the sense that there is none good but God?


:dl:Or, in the opposite sense that would be dog now wouldn't it? ;)


Actually, Iacchus, 'good' and 'evil' are all subjective, purely malleable terms. What is good to one person is evil to another. It's all part of the biochemistry. Simple as pie. To everything there is a season, of which good can only remain good ... so long as it remains in context.

[Z]

I have only one reply to you:

164624; 242; 0ICU812; 4192; 8675309; 7734

Now, can you tell everyone what each of these means or refers to? :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I have only one reply to you:

164624; 242; 0ICU812; 4192; 8675309; 7734

Now, can you tell everyone what each of these means or refers to? :) Am I omniscient? No. But I know that I'm not, and therein lies the good.

[C.J.]

Yay! Games!

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I have only one reply to you:

164624; 242; 0ICU812; 4192; 8675309; 7734

Now, can you tell everyone what each of these means or refers to? :)

Okay. Let me guess:

1) "164624": Dunno
2) "242": There is (was?) a band called Front 242
3) "OICU812": It's the answer to a riddle or part of a joke or some such; it reads "Oh, I see you ate one too"
4) "4192": Dunno
5) "8675309": Jenny!
6) "7734": enter this into your calculator, and then turn it upside-down! It says a naughty word!

That was fun.

[geni]

Originally posted by Skeptic
They certainly do. The laws of PHYSICS might not apply to all-powerful beings, of course, but LOGIC--what is true in all possible worlds--does. This is what makes logic logic, after all.


You cannot prove this is the case.

[Hardenbergh]

Originally posted by C.J.
Yay! Games!



Okay. Let me guess:

1) "164624": Dunno
2) "242": There is (was?) a band called Front 242
3) "OICU812": It's the answer to a riddle or part of a joke or some such; it reads "Oh, I see you ate one too"
4) "4192": Dunno
5) "8675309": Jenny!
6) "7734": enter this into your calculator, and then turn it upside-down! It says a naughty word!

That was fun.

There's a lot more to Iacchus than numerology. I'm sure most people have noticed.

[C.J.]

Okay, back to work....

Originally posted by Skeptic
The problem with this (which indeed is probably the most common believer's response) is that (formally speaking) if earth is possible world E and heaven possible world H out of a set of possible worlds P, then what is the relation between them in terms of "goodness"--that is, is P fully or only partially ordered in that respect?

If P is fully ordered, than either E is less than H, or H than E, andd, in both cases, we have a problem (as I said above).

Assuming E and H are subsets of P, and given our experiences and expectations, I think you are correct in that there is a problem.

Originally posted by Skeptic
However, if neither is the case--E and H are incomparable--then one finds it hard to imagine in what sense is it a good thing to go to heaven. Isn't the whole point of heaven that it is supposed to be far, far superior to this vale of tears?

Yeah, my response in BelieverMode does assume an inability to directly compare, but I don't know that this necessiatates a total incomparability. Earth could still be part of a subset of possible worlds, though the believer would likely consider Heaven a set unto itself. A particular value, say "goodness," can be present for both, which might lead you to believe that you can directly compare, but the qualitative differences make that impossible.

Using the apples/oranges thing again, well, they can both be good, and you may have available to you both the best of all possible apples and the singluar (Heavenly) orange. Are both good? Surely! Ah, but is one better than the other? An objective answer to this does not seem possible, really because of personal tastes. Essentially, you run into the same thing with the "best of all possible worlds" argument, save that "faith" or "belief" is substituted for taste.

Just reading through this makes me unsure I'm clear on the point, but I have to prep for class and so can't spend anymore time right now. I'll check back later to see if I actually typed what I was thinking in a comprehensible way....

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Heaven as an Argument Against God’s Existence--an article I am writing... At the risk of sounding a little reductive, your point seems to boil down to this: although classical theistic solutions to the Problem of Evil assert that moral good cannot be produced without also producing moral evil, certain existing theistic doctrines appear to assume that moral good can be produced without also creating moral evil.

The thesis in your argument is not new. I think your version of it is well-written, however, and I hope you bring the article to completion.

I think that in order for your approach to work, you need to be able to defend logically the notion that existence in Heaven (regardless of whether free will can be said to exist there) by virtue of having been created in that state is as morally good, or meritorious, as attaining such a state by previously having freely made the "right" decisions on earth. If you can't, than your argument is vulnerable to a counterargument that a possible world containing only Heaven and no earth is not necessarily better than a world containing both a Heaven and an earth.

[Z]

Originally posted by C.J.
Yay! Games!



Okay. Let me guess:

1) "164624": Dunno
2) "242": There is (was?) a band called Front 242
3) "OICU812": It's the answer to a riddle or part of a joke or some such; it reads "Oh, I see you ate one too"
4) "4192": Dunno
5) "8675309": Jenny!
6) "7734": enter this into your calculator, and then turn it upside-down! It says a naughty word!

That was fun.

I actually wanted to see what Iacchus made of each of those - He hasn't spouted his numerology in so long, I thought I'd fuel his flames a little, and see what he comes up with.

1) was just random. 4) has some signifigance to me, I just don't know what.

The rest? C.J. gets the solid-gold kewpie doll.

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Heaven as an Argument Against God’s Existence--an article I am writing...

In summary, heaven seems a direct refutation of the claim that this is the best of all possible worlds, and an indirect one of the idea that free will explains evil on earth.

I like your article, and agree with most of your points, but there is a possible argument, as I see it.
What if earth and heaven are not taken as two distinct entities, but as a progression. Ie. there is something about heaven that would not work if all souls did not first spend time on earth?
For whatever reason you want to dream up...
It's a place where we need to learn about ourselves.
God uses it to weed out the 'sinners' (I don't like this argument much - why would he create them in the first place then? after all he is omnicient.)
Seeing evil first hand allows us to enjoy heaven more, or avoid sin in heaven, or whatever.

You might also argue that while free will on earth is necessary for whatever reason, once we've been through that, it's no longer necessary in heaven.

And by the way, don't shoot the messenger... I might put forth these arguments as possible but none of it seems at all likely.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what is logic, and where does it come from? ... a universe completely devoid of structure perhaps? Indeed, what is logical about something that comes from nothing or, something that comes from something which doesn't mean anything? So, if there was just one thing that was pre-existent over everything else, that would have to be logic don't you think? Yet if that were true, we find ourselves in the position where we have to ask, what is logic without the mind that entertains it? In which case we are left to conclude that logic has always existed, as part of a pre-existent mind or, it hasn't. And if it hasn't, we can only conclude that it was something that came about "after the fact." In which case what are we doing basing anything upon that which was never existent in the first place? ;)

Could you please rewrite that in a way that makes sense?

[Sushi]

Most proofs against God's existence suffer similar flaws that proofs for a God's existence suffer. I'm sure this will be no different.

[c4ts]

Three things wrong with that:

1. Requires a consistent and specific definition of "God."
2. It's impossible to completely prove a negative.
3. It's impossible to completely prove anything to a deeply entrenched religious mindset no matter what you say.

[Ossai]

Roboramma
Ie. there is something about heaven that would not work if all souls did not first spend time on earth? What about newborns that die. Are their few hours of life enough of an earthly existence?

You might also argue that while free will on earth is necessary for whatever reason, once we've been through that, it's no longer necessary in heaven. So no freewill in heaven just mindless robots. Why not create heaven that way to begin if that is what god wanted?

Ossai

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts

Could you please rewrite that in a way that makes sense? Well, since we're so hung up on logic here, I'm asking if logic has always existed? If so, then where does it come from? If logic has always existed, shouldn't that entail a "logical mind" to entertain it? Indeed, how can we argue the logic of this thing or that thing, pre-existent or otherwise ... unless of course logic has always been?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ossai

So no freewill in heaven just mindless robots. Why not create heaven that way to begin if that is what god wanted?

Ossai Indeed, why can't God beget "little gods?" After all, we are the "children" of God aren't we?

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Ossai
Roboramma
What about newborns that die. Are their few hours of life enough of an earthly existence?


It's enough, evidently, such that on the Day of Judgement, they will be resurrected, given an indestructible body, then heaved into a lake of molten lava where these newborns will scream in indescribable agony for all eternity.

Presumably, the stillborn and aborted will, too, since they are not baptized, either. The Lord will look down and feel bad that an aborted baby will have to be mercilessly tortured for all eternity, but rulez is rulez.

But what about miscarriages, one-celled fertilized zygotes that never implanted, etc. Will a one-celled human be resurrected as an indestructible cell that is cast into the lake of lava? As it has no nerves, it will experience no anguish. Perhaps The Lord, in his infinite goodness, will advance it's development enough so that it is about a baby in mental capacity, then heave it into the lake of molten lava for all eternity.