On the existence of God: A rebuttal

** DISCLAIMER **: The following text is written purely in humor and with no intentions to offend anyone’s religious sentiments.

In [[http://cerebral-mines.blogspot.com/2004/08/on-existence-of-god-priyendra-deshwal.html| (1)]], the authors present an inductive approach to proving God’s existence. While the argument is well presented, it is fundamentally flawed, as we will argue in this article.

To begin with, their argument starts with the assumption that “God is the master of the Universe”. While this statement itself is subject to some debate, our objection is at the definition of master. If the authors’ definition of “master of the Universe” implies that the master is also the Creator, then this argument inherits the perils of the Cosmological argument because we can always pose the question as to “who created the creator?”

The argument also pre-supposes a humanoid form for God, always referring to it as a “being”, being born and dying, and even the possibility that God might have a mother! The argument clearly begs for a precise definition of the concepts and notions used therein. If God is the supreme being, what does it mean to say that “The mother dies and she was God. In such a case, the new being is the child of God and hence, he can rightfully be called God himself.”. What would the spouse of God be called in that case? Is God unisexual?

Further, in their argument, the authors have also pre-supposed that a child birth involves the appeareance of a single new being in the world. We all know that giving birth to twins is quite common, and there have been cases of triplets and quartets as well. That being the case, the argument does not handle the situations where the Mother gave birth to two or more children. This also implies the “immortality” of God or his “continued presence” via reincarnations — both of which are subject to further criticism and debate.

A sound logical argument should by definition be “pure” and “abstract” and refrain from using such subjective notions. While the authors note that future work in their research includes extending the framework to answer some of the questions raised above (regarding the plurality of God for instance), the original argument itself does not make sense till some of these questions have been answered.

To conclude, [1] might have demonstrated a new approach that could be used to prove/disprove the existence of God. But the argument in [1], as it is, fails to achieve its goals due to the loop holes pointed out above.

** References **

// [1] “On The Existence of God”. Priyendra Deshwal. To appear in the XXXth Annual Cerebral Mines Journal//