July 2007

A pair of sentences to disprove the existence of a God (or at least, a perfect one, which is the one most people refer to).

1. If the ‘ingredients’ are perfect, the product must be perfect – thus, the evidently imperfect universe could not have come from a supposedly perfect creator.

2. Perfection is doomed to stagnation – being both incapable of growth and decay (if it was perfect it would not decay, and you can’t get better than perfect). Never minding the Laws of Thermodynamics, because of this stagnation, the perfect being could not create, or indeed do anything.

I hate to say it, but I’m going to have to disagree with your proofs.

1. A perfect creator could choose to create an imperfect universe (in the same way that a manufacturer could introduce planned obsolescence). Some apologists would also argue that imperfection in the universe is necessary for free will so, in a sense, a perfect universe would be less perfect.

2) A perfect being would be stagnant only in the sense that its own nature would not change. The act of creation would not, in and of itself, make a being more or less perfect. (And you’re right that thermodynamics would not apply to a deity.)

Let me know if you disagree!

Posted on July 8, 2007 at 11:40 am by ideclare · Permalink
In: Evidence

Leave a Reply