X-Ftn-To: Ian 

"Ian"  wrote:
>I'll have ago at the exact opposite here is my proof that God does NOT
>exist;
>
>Definition 1: "The Universe" is all that exists
>Definition 2: "God" is that which created the Universe
>
>Step 1: Assume that God DOES exist.
>Step 2: Then God is part of the Universe (by Definition 1)
>Step 3: Then God created himself/itself (by Definition 2), obviously absurd.
>
>So by reductio ad absurdem the hypothesis that God exists must be incorrect.
>Therefore God does not exist. Q.E.D.

This is a good example of bad logic, because you defined "The
Universe" as the primary reality. Doing that, you implied
non-existence of God, and the rest just follows from this premise.
However, if you make different premises, you will get different
results. For instance:

1. There is the most fundamental layer of the reality.
2. This fundamental layer is either God, or the Universe, as we know
it.
3. If this Universe has the reality index of n, and n-1 exists, n-1
might or might not be God, depending on whether n-1=0, or not.

For a good disproof of the existence of God, you would need to prove
that this Universe is the most fundamental layer of the reality, or,
that n = 0. This cannot be done, because it isn't; this Universe came
to be at some point, and before that, the more fundamental layer of
the reality existed. So, now that we know that n > 0, we yet need to
know how far away from the most fundamental reality it in fact is.

Another problem with your definition 1 is the implicit premise that
"we perceive all that exists, and this doesn't include God". Actually,
we perceive only a small portion of the physical universe, which is
not a very good basis for conclusions about the origin of the entirety
of all physical existence (which is then, by definition,
non-physical).

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org