help with "proof" for non-existence of God

Dan Hook (
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:31:17 -0500

I am aware that this might be a little off subject but it is one of my
hobby's to argue with theists. I am aware that I do not have a chance of
changing their views. Right now my current goal is having someone say,
"That's a good argument, but I still believe."

I'm posting this now because I actually met someone who I did not have to
give them a God to believe in. Usually a theist's conception of their god
is so underdeveloped the first step is to get a definition. I'll outline
my best argument so far.

First, I ask a question:
Is God omniscient?

If the answer is no, than I'm sunk because then my arguement is that a
person could become God and that sort of blasphemy tends to block the minds

If the answer is yes, than it gets interesting.

I use the maximum possible definition of ominiscent. At this point I
eliminate many other people who just don't follow what comes next.

If a being is omniscent then it knows the position and state of every
particle in the universe. Of course, to get that kind of resolution, the
being would need the entire universe as a storage device. Since adding any
thought to this being would result in more information in the universe we
are left with the problem of infinite simulations within simulations. This
leads to paradox and a paradox is the conclusion of a negative proof.

I need some feedback on this. I want to refine this arguement until there
are as few scientific holes in it as possible. I would appreciate all

Dan Hook