Skip navigation

Vodpod videos no longer available.

A logical proof that Mormonism is false  by CARM

Mormonism teaches that God used to be a man on another world and that he became a god (this is called exaltation) and came to this world with his goddess wife. He was able to become a god because he followed the laws and ordinances of the god he served on another world. That god in turn was exalted by his god, who was exalted by his god, ad infinitum. In other words, there is a progression of gods being formed as far back as you look in time.
Truth does not contradict itself. If I gave two statements about a subject and the two statements contradicted each other, then you would know something was wrong. The law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. In other words, truth does not contradict itself. This is basic logic. That which is true is internally consistent and contains no logical impossibilities. If something does contain a logical impossibility, then it cannot be true.
Mormonism teaches an infinite regression of causes. This means that it teaches that each god was made a god by a previous god. This means that as far back as you look in time, this process has always been occurring. This means that from an infinity of time in the past, the Mormon plan of exaltation (become gods) has been in effect. The only problem is that this is logically impossible. Since it is logically impossible, this means that Mormonism is false. Let’s look closer.

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes. It is logically impossible. Why? Because you can not cross an infinity.
In other words, in order for us to get to the present state of this god on this planet, there would have had to be an infinite number of exaltations in the past. But, this cannot be because in order to get to the present, you would have to transverse an infinity of exaltations and that is impossible since you cannot transverse an infinity — if you could cross (transverse) an infinity of time, then it isn’t infinite. Therefore, the Mormon system of infinite regressions of exaltations to godhood is impossible and Mormonism is proven false. Simple.

However, Mormons will not give in to a logical proof since their testimonies are not based on facts, but on what they claim is a testimony of the Holy Spirit. Of course, all cult groups have testimonies that their church is true (proving that testimonies are contradictory and untrustworthy as a means to determining truth).

 

Nevertheless, they are taught to “feel” theological truth, not think it through.
How then do they respond to this logical proof that Mormonism is false? Normally they say that it is a mystery. Mysteries are fine, but they cannot suffice as an explanation if they contradict logic. In other words, if a principle is blatantly illogically, it cannot be true. Did you get that? It cannot be true. Saying it is a mystery means nothing if the proclamation of that mystery violates the laws of logic. Mormonism is proven false.

What is the truth?

Check out the following verses. 
“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed,”(Mal. 3:6).

“Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God,”

 

(Psalm 90:2). http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm

=======================================================

CLICK THE LOGOS ABOVE TO GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE RADIO SHOW

—————————————————————————-

What is sad is that this simple logical proof, and it is a proof that Mormonism is false, will mean basically nothing to those whose spiritual eyes have been blinded by the god of this world. (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

Advertisements

13 Comments

  1. Ah, the good old, Kalam Infinity argument…

    The problem with the argument is that it unnecessarily divides an infinite quantity into small manageable (but artificial) steps, and then makes assumptions based on the existence of those steps.

    But even if there were an infinite past (as Mormonism claims), that does not mean that we “could never arrive” at the present moment.

    The easiest way to debunk the assumption of Kalam Infinity is to simply look at “Xeno’s Paradox.”

    Imagine I’m trying to reach the door, and I first travel half the distance to the door. Then half the distance again. Then half again. And again. And so forth.

    At this rate, I can never reach the door, correct? I can only ever get halfway there. I will never reach it.

    In effect, there is an infinity of microscopic and sub-microscopic divisible space between me and that door. But to get to the door, I must traverse ALL of that infinite space – including all of its divisions. Since the distance between me and the door is composed of an infinity of steps that must be traversed in order to reach the door, it should be logically impossible for me to ever reach the door. After all, I have to cross each and every one of those small portions of space before I can get there right? Every stage must be taken before I can reach the destination, right?

    Well, according to your silly Kalam Infinity argument, yes – I will never reach the door. It’s logically impossible to successfully traverse an infinity of steps or stages.

    But this is nothing more than a silly Greek logic game on your part, and disproving it is easy. In fact, the disproof is as easy as reaching out and touching your computer screen.

    There!

    You just traversed infinity!

    Likewise, it is possible to traverse an infinite past and arrive where we are today.

    By contrast, the finite universe that traditional Christians posit makes no sense whatever. What was God doing before He created all this stuff as you claim? Combing His hair?

    If He was such a perfect and sufficient God, then why would He bother to change the state of things? Why create a universe at all? After all, if you’ve already got “perfection,” wouldn’t any change mean you are moving from perfection to imperfection?

    Which leaves you poor orthodox Christians with only two options. Either your God wasn’t perfect to begin with, and needed to change things to make them perfect. Or He was perfect, but screwed up that perfect state of affairs by creating us – which means He is no longer perfect. Take your pick.

    That’s the problem with combining a static and immovable God with a changing universe, like traditional Christians try to do. The two don’t really work together very well.

    Not to mention that modern physics have pretty much debunked your precious “Big Bang” theory’s ability to act as a proof of traditional Christian theology (namely a “finite past” ). Physicists now believe that the last Big Bang was only one of many, and that our universe expands AND collapses in a continual cycle. What is more, our local Big Bang universe is probably only one of an infinite number of such universes. So I’m afraid you all are back to square-one on that score.

    Not only that, but theories of particle resonance are showing that the artificial progression of time may only be a localized phenomenon that we experience. But it isn’t necessarily the way the universe works. Moreover, matter can transcend space and time and does it all the time.

    But of course, you will prove impervious to such “logical proofs” since your testimony is not based in “fact” either.

    • Brad
    • Posted August 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm
    • Permalink

    Seth, this is ridiculous. Touching a computer screen has absolutely NOTHING to do with the argument raised. Why? B/c we ALL live in a finite universe right now, thus there is NO infinity that needs to be crossed for me to touch a computer screen. God, however, exists both in and out of time.

    The logic from CARM stands up very well. You, as a Mormon, none of us expect to actually BELIEVE the logic. But it holds true, nonetheless. You can use all the “terms” you wish, Seth; still doesn’t make anything you pose above correct.

  2. Hello Seth and Brad, hey thanks for commenting here.

    Seth, Your response is so full of logical fallacies that I hardly knew where to start once I got past the outrageously illogical computer screen analogy. If you had excluded that analogy your post would have seemed logical and astute on the surface. But once you get into defining the Kalam argument and Zeno’s paradox, one starts to see that there is not a shred of sanity in your response and that some people will go to any lengths to justify their beliefs. Your response is proof positive that the perishing are indeed blinded to the truth.

    Matt Slick from CARM did not employ the kalam argument. The kalam argument asserts that time and space are NOT infinite and that necessitates the need of a creator. Matt’s argument is not dealing with time and space and the necessity of a creator but it disproves the infinite regression of gods that supposedly came before the Mormon God as the Mormon doctrine of eternal progression stipulates. Neither kalams argument or anything you said deals with the issue at hand. How did man get here.

    One thing is certain. Your doctrine of eternal progression makes man to be more eternal and infinite than God himself since God is supposedly an exalted man. BUT WHERE DID MAN COME FROM?

    I had never heard of the kalam argument or Zeno’s paradox before so I thank you for bringing it up and requiring me to do some study. I found literally dozens of plausible solutions to Zenos’ paradox. And even though the argument is irrelevant to the question at hand I will offer some of them at another time. I am working on a part 2 of this post which will be a sizable response to your comment here which I will include in the post. I hope you will return to read it and comment again.

    But my most emphatic question to you right now is,,, why do you think they call Zeno’s paradox a paradox?

    Thanks
    Damon Whitsell
    How2BecomeAChristian.info

  3. It holds up, because in both instances you’ve artificially divided an infinite quantity into portions and demanded that each portion be traversed before you can get anywhere.

    Of course you can’t traverse an infinite quantity if you demand that each stage be completed before you can get anywhere. But it’s the artificial demands you’ve placed on it that cause the fallacy here.

    Brad wrote:

    “God, however, exists both in and out of time.”

    Which is why it is doubly ridiculous for you to be making artificial infinity restrictions on Him. What is stopping Him from reaching across time and space just as easily as I can reach my computer screen?

  4. Funny thing is, I don’t even have to appeal to “gasp” Mormon apologists for arguments here. Mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers with absolutely nothing to do with Mormonism have already done a pretty thorough job of discrediting the Kalam Cosmological argument.

    Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the subject:

    “The Kalam Cosmological argument assumes in premise 2 that the universe (and therefore time) had a beginning. Such conclusion is supposedly based on the impossibility of an actual infinity. The elaboration of that argument is as follows:

    “Suppose that time is infinite. Then the amount of time already elapsed until we reach ‘now’ would be infinite. But an infinite amount of time already elapsed is clearly impossible => contradiction.

    Hence, time must be finite.”

    However the proof of the impossibility of the infinity of time can simply be rejected on a logical contradiction on which the whole so-called proof is based. This contradiction involves the nature of infinity itself, which (as applied to the infinity of time) makes it clear we may not assume that the time line has a beginning, and therefore, we could never start our count in the first place. Yet, the Kalam Cosmological argument at some point smuggles into its premises that we need to think of infinite time as a timeline with a beginning, since the argument presupposes we could have started our count of time at the beginning of the time line. Such is of course an illegal assumption, since based on the infinity of the time line, we are not supposed to think that the timeline has a beginning. An infinite timeline thought as a timeline with a beginning is very much a contradictio in adjecto (contradiction in definition), and with which the proof falls apart.”

    The entry continues:

    For measuring time we always need two points. In whichever way we do that, and no matter where we place our two points, the measured distance (time interval) simply never is an actual infinity. Yet, such does not in any way make the time line less infinite, since we can just place a new set of two points further away then the previous one and thereby prove that there is not a finite limit to the distance between two points placed on the infinite time line.

    It is therefore clear that the whole argument is based on a contradiction, namely the contradiction that it is supposed that we can start our count of time by placing our start point at the beginning of the infinite time line. Since the timeline is infinite, such a beginning point does not exist. Measuring time always implies placing two points on the infinite time line and which measure is at the same time a finite but also infinite measure. The latter is of course counter-intuitive, since it would seem quantities can not be both finite and infinite. Yet, the subtlety of the infinite clearly shows that our finite measured distance between any two points on the time line is not a finite measure, since we could always place the two points further apart wherever we placed the original two points, and conclude from that that there is no limit to the measure of time itself. The infinite, therefore, exists solely in the form of finite quantities. Such is seemingly contradictory, yet that is the case.

    An excellent elaboration of the disproof of this same type of argument is contained in the book Anti-Duhring by Friedrich Engels (1877), chapter 5: Time and Space.

    For a further elaboration about quantitative finite and infinite, see the work of Hegel, Science of Logic, Determinate Being (Quality), Remark 2: The Kantian Antinomy of the Limitation and Nonlimitation of the World in Time and Space”

    And I didn’t even have to quote a Mormon apologist to find this argument. Kalam cosmology is based on a faulty understanding of how infinite numbers work in mathematics. Not that I blame you too much. Higher math is a very tricky and often seemingly counter-intuitive subject, and not many people get it. But that doesn’t mean it’s any less true.

    The inability to accommodate the universe that modern science is revealing to us is one of orthodox Christianity’s most glaring flaws. The field of modern physics and mathematics – especially quantum physics – by contrast is an area where Mormonism shows a lot more of a grasp on how the universe works than traditional Christianity does.

    • Brad
    • Posted August 22, 2008 at 4:28 am
    • Permalink

    Seth, this is retarded.

  5. I agree Brad, truly ridiculous,

    SETH wrote: It holds up, because in both instances you’ve artificially divided an infinite quantity into portions and demanded that each portion be traversed before you can get anywhere.

    Of course you can’t traverse an infinite quantity if you demand that each stage be completed before you can get anywhere. But it’s the artificial demands you’ve placed on it that cause the fallacy here.
    ______________________________________

    I say: No the Zeno paradox does not hold up because, 1. Unlike Zeno’s paradox, Mr. Slick was talking about an actual infinity,, not an imagined one. 2. Zeno’s paradox is a paradox because it is contradictory to real experience and itself.

    Zeno’s paradox does not deal with time and space, or God and man going back for infinity!. It deals with Zeno’s pathetically alleged notion that movement is an illusion. Applied to movement and even time and space it is totally illogical.

    Zeno’s paradox is really several paradoxes being 1. Achilles’ and the turtle. 2. The dichotomy paradox. 3. The arrow paradox. Lets look at the one you used which is #2 the dichotomy paradox and your specific example of it touching the computer screen and walking to a door.

    If I am ten feet from the door, I walk half, which leaves five feet. I then walk half more which brings me 2 ½ feet from the door. I then walk another half and now I am 1 & ¼ feet from the door. Now here is the good part that you MUST NOT miss. I reach out and I have touched the door and I have traversed your imagined infinity. But my post (the article from carm) deals with real realities and infinites.

    Even if you want to make a merely mathematical observation you can still beat the Zeno’s paradox because you eventually will run into infinitesimal Zero and will have then crossed your imaginary boundary of your false infinity.

    The computer screen analogy is solved much easier. I don’t have to walk or do math to show it false. All I have to do is reach out and touch.
    ________________________
    Seth said: Brad wrote:
    “God, however, exists both in and out of time.”
    Which is why it is doubly ridiculous for you to be making artificial infinity restrictions on Him. What is stopping Him from reaching across time and space just as easily as I can reach my computer screen?
    ______________________________________

    Brad was correct and he did not place any artificial infinity restrictions on God. You do that by not agreeing that God lives both in and out of time? The bible clearly shows that God transcends time and space. The bible is replete with verses showing that God created everything. And you Mormons deny them all and say,,, no,,,, God did not create anything, he is an exalted man. And God and a succession of Gods before him has existed for an infinte amount of time, BUT SOME HOW man preceded him. And in fact God is an exalted man.

    That is truly ludicrous.

    And then you go on about Kalam’s argument (which by the way is not a paradox or a fallacy as you try to paint it, but Zenos paradox is appropriately called a paradox) But the article in post one does not use Kalams argument. Kalam’s argues that time must have had a beginning. Matt Slick is arguing that is impossible for many gods to have existed in an infinite regression of causes. Your trying to compare an apple and a lego block.

    Then you said (which you really said twice) “And I didn’t even have to quote a Mormon apologist to find this argument.”

    Please be informed that you will be allowed to post anything from Mormon apologist or scholars here.

  6. _________________________________
    Seth said: Brad wrote:
    “God, however, exists both in and out of time.”
    Which is why it is doubly ridiculous for you to be making artificial infinity restrictions on Him. What is stopping Him from reaching across time and space just as easily as I can reach my computer screen?
    ______________________

    Your question here shows perfectly how double minded and inconsistent that the Mormon teaching of eternal progression really is.

    God does not have to reach out to touch the other side of the universe, Because he transcends and created time and space, (the universe). He is already on both sides of the universe. He is everywhere within this universe. He is everywhere that is not this universe. He is everywhere. He is omni-present. He is not a finite being that had a beginning and an infinite regression of causes is impossible if God was once a man.

    Your cosmology does not account for Gods initial exaltation to godhood, (the first god) or the preceding span of time that man existed as man before he was exalted. AND IF ONE MAN WAS EXALTED OR EVOLVED INTO A GOD, WHY DID THEY NOT ALL DO THE SAME?

    How can you claim that Mormonism is Christianity when Christianity has always been monotheistic (and it is very provable, look into the Hebrew Shema) and Mormonism has always been polytheistic? So exactly how many Mormons Gods do you say there is? To me,,, if it is as you say, there has been an infinite regression of causations exalting one Mormon god after another, The number of your alleged Mormon Gods should also be infinite.

    And boy I have to tell ya,, It is totally insane to believe such an impossibility over the Mormon pipe dream of the exaltation of man. Your desire to be a god is gonna cost you dearly and eternally,, just like it cost Satan over his desire to be god. So shall you too fall like lightening from heaven on your judgment day.

    Your only hope is to abandon your devious, sinister and insane desire for self salvation and self exaltation, and to throw yourself at the feet of the real biblical Jesus begging for mercy and grace,, and accepting his free gift of eternal life.

    • nebula0
    • Posted August 26, 2008 at 2:24 am
    • Permalink

    This issue touches on the heart of the problem as far as I am concerned. Mormonism diminishes God to the point of no return, in Mormonism there is no real Deity, there is only immature people and fully mature people (gods). Where is God as the ultimate ground of everything? AS the rule maker? By whom we owe our very existence? He is defined out of existence by the imagination of Joseph Smith.

  7. __________________________________________

    Seth R, I have decided that your comments will no longer be accepted here. On the grounds of,

    1. You insistence to be able to post official Mormon literature here even though you have been told 4 times NO.. I am not a professional, and this blog is not here for me to refute the official Mormon response. It is here to challenge LDS members about their doctrine and their church.

    2. Your bragging that you did not have to go to “Mormon Scholars” to get info against the Mr. Slicks argument, when I know good and well that Mr. Lindsey has used your same line of reasoning against Mr. Slicks article.

    3. You perceiving my attacking Mormon doctrines and the Mormon church, and their illogical inconsistencies, as attacking you personally, and you perceiving that it grants you the right to attack me personally.

    4. Because you have not shown any desire to learn anything that is not pro Mormon. That is expressed conclusively in your constant troll tactics, and your more recent bully tactics. All while falsely accusing me of attacking you personally. I don’t know anything about you but other than that you name is Seth. It is an impossibility for me to attack you personally because I don’t know anything about you except that you’re a Mormon and play nice at first, but will then resort to all sorts of conniving tactics. .

    I thank you for the comments you have made and for making me have tom study up on Kalams and zeno’s. But please don’t even bother submitting comments any longer. I will not even read them.

    Thanks, Damon Whitsell Hbac.info
    ______________________________________________

  8. Just for the readers info, my descision about Seth was amde on 4 post that where not accepted.

    • suz
    • Posted September 27, 2008 at 6:25 pm
    • Permalink

    I just happpened to come across this post and as I read it, I have one question for you….what religion is not based upon a testimony? Where is your FACT that Jesus lived on this earth and died for our sins? Where is your FACT that God is the Almighty? All of this is belief. Your opinions about the Mormon religion would contradict much of what you believe and why you believe it.

    • A guy
    • Posted March 28, 2010 at 8:38 am
    • Permalink

    You missed the point suz… the point is that if there is a belief and it can be logically disproven then it is false… whether or not it is a belief. Sure Christians are still making a leap of faith, but this leap of faith is non-contradicting no matter how foolish it sounds to many people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: