1. (not about ships this time)
Another Puzzle
(not about ships this time)

2. Consider the following arguments: #1
If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), then He can do anything.
If He can do anything, then he can make a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it.
If there exists a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
Therefore, if God is omnipotent, then he is not omnipotent.
But, this is a contradiction. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.
But, if God is not omnipotent, then He is not God.
Therefore, God does not exist.

3. Argument #2
If God exists, then He is omnipotent, omniscient (all knowing), and omni-benevolent (all good).
If God is omnibenevolent, then He wishes to prevent evil, if evil exists.
If God is omniscient, then He knows that evil exists, if evil does exist.
If God is omnipotent, then He can prevent evil, if He knows that evil exists.
Evil does exist.
Therefore, either God is not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not omnibenevolent.
But if He is not any one of these things, then He does not exist.
Therefore, God does not exist.

4. Argument #3
If I am free (or have free will), then it is not the case that anyone can know what I will decide to do in the future, until and unless I decide to do it.
If God is omniscient, then He knows what I will decide to do in the future.
Therefore, either I am not free or God does not exist.
But I am free, therefore God does not exist.

5. Argument #4
If God is the omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe, then He a) wants to create the best possible universe, and b) He can create the best possible universe.
Therefore, if God exists, then the present universe is the best possible universe.
But the present universe is not the best possible, since we can imagine a better.
Therefore, God does not exist.

6. Proofs that God does not exist
The foregoing are supposedly proofs, but what is a ‘proof’ of something?
“proof” =df. A sound deductive argument
“sound” =df. Valid + true premises
Recall: a valid deductive argument is one where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true (it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false)
Q: are you persuaded that God does not exist? Why not?

7. What proofs do (& don’t do)
Consider another proof (of the interior angles theorem)
Q: if you are persuaded in this case but not in the previous ones, why? What is different about this case (or what is different about the previous cases?)
Q: Can proofs be given for the existence of something?
If proofs can’t force or compel belief, what are they supposed to do? (think about rationality)