• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

You "showed" nothing. You asserted something -- show it/Here's your assertion:
I showed the claim that was in error and identified the error. That's all I need to do to show the error in your proof. I thought you loved philosophy, where's the love?

If you'd like more explanation, OK, but it's simple English.
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
Did you think double-negatives hid this? Not the case not exist -> that means IS the case DOES exist.
In statement #6, you simply assert that God exists. But you claim later it's the conclusion, or that its some logical proof for gods existence.

The end. part 2.
 
If your personal vitriol is spent, perhaps you have something intelligible to say about the proof.

It is drivel. As other posters have explianed to you again.

Test you proof by substituting The Great Pixi in Blue socks for the God word and see if it works then. If it does not work for you ask why?
 
Proof of God

iFT1wGb.jpg



1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)


This is a modal argument in simple direct English answering the skeptical challenge to provide a proof of God's existence.
The author of the proof welcomes comment and good-faith engagement.​

6 and 7 are a leap of reasoning. That it cannot be argued that he must not exist does not mean that he does.

You are using 5 as a either / or statement when in fact the two are not related. God must exist and god must not exist are two claims that need proof not simply be contrasted.
 
6 and 7 are a leap of reasoning. That it cannot be argued that he must not exist does not mean that he does.

You are using 5 as a either / or statement when in fact the two are not related. God must exist and god must not exist are two claims that need proof not simply be contrasted.

ya think?

1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If Unicorns exist, Unicorns must exist. (definition)

5. Either Unicorns must exist or Unicorns must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that Unicorns must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, Unicorns must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If Unicorns must exist, then Unicorns can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If Unicorns can exist, then Unicorns exist. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. Unicorns can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore Unicorns exist. (from 9 and 10)

Yes, folks. Someone actually thought that made sense.
 
That's nonsense. What if I consider unicorns god? You're simply pretending they're different because it makes your argument look ridiculous and you can't even articulate WHY they're supposed to be different.
You apparently are unfamiliar with the distinction between contingency and necessity.
 
My denial and refusal and dismissal don't need evidence because you have offered no evidence to support your assertion god exists.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I can't prove a negative, and that's irrelevant, because you can't even support your claim at all, without this word salad nonsense.
You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of a logical proof. The concept of evidence does not apply.
 
You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of a logical proof. The concept of evidence does not apply.

Your entire statement was word salad and illogical. That's the point. You have no "proof" of anything, and logic doesn't "prove" god exists just because you strung together a whole slew of random thoughts and tried to make a conclusion out of it.
 
You replied but you didn't actually demonstrate the point is wrong. Why couldn't someone write a similar proof but with something else in place of "God"? "4 - If unicorns exist, unicorns must exist", "4 - If flying elephants exist, flying elephants must exist", "4 - If Zeus exist, Zeus must exist" etc.

Sure, but it's still logically flawed. If you wrote "God is ether necessary or not necessary" that would be correct but obviously breaks your proof. "Not necessary" isn't the same as "Must not exist".
Your first point, again, has been answered. Unicorns enjoy at best contingent existence and by definition are mythical creatures; God is by definition a necessary being.

You may have something with your second point, but if you do the problem lies with trying to express modal concepts in plain English. I'll have another look at it.
 
Your entire statement was word salad and illogical. That's the point. You have no "proof" of anything, and logic doesn't "prove" god exists just because you strung together a whole slew of random thoughts and tried to make a conclusion out of it.
You have no point. But I hope you have a nice afternoon.
 
Proof of God

iFT1wGb.jpg



1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)


This is a modal argument in simple direct English answering the skeptical challenge to provide a proof of God's existence.
The author of the proof welcomes comment and good-faith engagement.​

Well, that's momentarily entertaining for the author but it doesn't have any practical use. You can believe or not believe what ever you want no matter what 1-11 says.
 
You have no point. But I hope you have a nice afternoon.

You mean like the premise of this thread?

Yeah, no point.
 
Proof of God

iFT1wGb.jpg



1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)


This is a modal argument in simple direct English answering the skeptical challenge to provide a proof of God's existence.
The author of the proof welcomes comment and good-faith engagement.​

Nonsense. There is no god. It is all based on faith in the unknowable. And if you can't know something, why have faith in it?
 
Why prove God exists. God is self existent. That’s what makes Him God.

Why believe in the unknowable? I believe in the fact that the atomic number of silver is 47 because I can observe & measure that. Can't do that with gods.
 
I showed the claim that was in error and identified the error. That's all I need to do to show the error in your proof. I thought you loved philosophy, where's the love?

If you'd like more explanation, OK, but it's simple English.
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
Did you think double-negatives hid this? Not the case not exist -> that means IS the case DOES exist.
In statement #6, you simply assert that God exists. But you claim later it's the conclusion, or that its some logical proof for gods existence.

The end. part 2.
"Begging the question" means assuming what you are to prove. Premise #6 by itself does not purport to prove anything -- it is a negation of a proposition. It negates the proposition that God is logically impossible. In order to refute this statement, one would need to show the logical impossibility of God. That cannot be done since there is nothing self-contradictory about the concept of God in general or about God as necessary being. The plain English is not felicitous, I grant you, but I can write the premise out in symbolic logic if you think that will help.
 
Nonsense. There is no god. It is all based on faith in the unknowable. And if you can't know something, why have faith in it?
Your denial and dismissal are duly noted. This proof has nothing to do with religion or faith in case you are interested.
 
It is drivel. As other posters have explianed to you again.

Test you proof by substituting The Great Pixi in Blue socks for the God word and see if it works then. If it does not work for you ask why?
You clearly haven't a clue as to what a logical proof is. Stop wasting our time with this kind of post.
 
You clearly haven't a clue as to what a logical proof is. Stop wasting our time with this kind of post.

You cannot prove the existence of an unknowable being with logic. You are wasting your time. Unknowable = unprovable.
 
You cannot prove the existence of an unknowable being with logic. You are wasting your time. Unknowable = unprovable.
The proof is proof that you can prove the unknowable. Refute it or relax.
 
6 and 7 are a leap of reasoning. That it cannot be argued that he must not exist does not mean that he does.

You are using 5 as a either / or statement when in fact the two are not related. God must exist and god must not exist are two claims that need proof not simply be contrasted.
The "leap" is supposed to be moderated by the steps cumulatively. You are correct in stating "that it cannot be argued that he must not exist does not mean that he does," I don't think that's what the argument as a whole argues.

Premise #5 may have problems because of my attempt to capture modal statements in plain English. What I meant to capture was "Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist." I may need to tweak that line. Others have had problems with it also.
 
Well, that's momentarily entertaining for the author but it doesn't have any practical use. You can believe or not believe what ever you want no matter what 1-11 says.
I hope your post was "momentarily entertaining for the author" as well, but it carries no philosophical weight whatever.
 
Proof of God

iFT1wGb.jpg



1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)


This is a modal argument in simple direct English answering the skeptical challenge to provide a proof of God's existence.
The author of the proof welcomes comment and good-faith engagement.​

Those who actually care whether others believe in God demonstrate God's existence by acts of kindness not by posturing condescendingly to people that disagree with their assertion.
 
Poorly rehashed Argument from Necessity. Yawn

The error is easy to identify.

1. Whatever exists, can exist.
2. Whatever must exist, exists.
3. Whatever must exist, can exist.
4. If Harry Potter exists, Harry Potter must exist. (definition)
5. Either Harry Potter must exist or Harry Potter must not exist.
6. It is not the case that Harry Potter must not exist.
7. Therefore, Harry Potter must exist.
8. If Harry Potter must exist, then Harry Potter can exist.
9. If Harry Potter can exist, then Harry Potter exists.
10. Harry Potter can exist.
11. Therefore Harry Potter exists.

The problem obviously is that Point 4 begs the question. You are defining your deity (or Harry Potter) as necessarily existing; thus you are using your preferred conclusion as one of your own premises. Naughty Angel.
"Poorly rehashed" no doubt. Trying to capture modal nuances in plain English might have been biting off more than I could chew.

That said, I don't quite get the analogy to Harry Potter. The definition of God as a necessary being is not arbitrary. Defining Harry Potter as a necessary being is arbitrary. And the definition of God in the proof is expressed as a conditional where the antecedent is not asserted as given, but as something yet to be proved, so I don't see how it begs the question. Harry Potter does exist in several senses, as a character in books, as a character portrayed by actors in movies, and as a cultural icon. The existence of the God of the proof is exactly what's in question, and the God of the proof is not to be identified with any one of the various gods of organized religion -- the God of the proof is a purely logical entity and its existence depends on the success of the proof.

Again, I grant you the argument may not succeed; better minds than mine have wrestled with the ontological argument, and even modal versions of it (Godel, Hartshorne, Plantiga, Craig), but I felt like trying my hand at a plain English version here in the forum to see what sort of reception it would get. So I appreciate your attention and welcome any constructive criticism as to its improvement.
 
Those who actually care whether others believe in God demonstrate God's existence by acts of kindness not by posturing condescendingly to people that disagree with their assertion.
I don't care what others believe or don't believe as far as God goes, and I cannot take seriously any moralizing from someone who sees nothing wrong with taking a human life.
 
ya think?

1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If Unicorns exist, Unicorns must exist. (definition)

5. Either Unicorns must exist or Unicorns must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that Unicorns must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, Unicorns must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If Unicorns must exist, then Unicorns can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If Unicorns can exist, then Unicorns exist. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. Unicorns can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore Unicorns exist. (from 9 and 10)

Yes, folks. Someone actually thought that made sense.
Your proof made perfect sense through #3.
 
"Poorly rehashed" no doubt. Trying to capture modal nuances in plain English might have been biting off more than I could chew.

That said, I don't quite get the analogy to Harry Potter. The definition of God as a necessary being is not arbitrary. Defining Harry Potter as a necessary being is arbitrary. And the definition of God in the proof is expressed as a conditional where the antecedent is not asserted as given, but as something yet to be proved, so I don't see how it begs the question. Harry Potter does exist in several senses, as a character in books, as a character portrayed by actors in movies, and as a cultural icon. The existence of the God of the proof is exactly what's in question, and the God of the proof is not to be identified with any one of the various gods of organized religion -- the God of the proof is a purely logical entity and its existence depends on the success of the proof.

Again, I grant you the argument may not succeed; better minds than mine have wrestled with the ontological argument, and even modal versions of it (Godel, Hartshorne, Plantiga, Craig), but I felt like trying my hand at a plain English version here in the forum to see what sort of reception it would get. So I appreciate your attention and welcome any constructive criticism as to its improvement.

Harry Potter does exist in several senses, as a character in books, as a character portrayed by actors in movies, and as a cultural icon.

Replace Harry Potter with God, and we have the same result.


Your logical exercises just comes down the same level where the existence of God is put on the same level as the existence of Harry Potter

If Harry Potter exists, so can god, if god exists so does Harry Potter. That said both exist in a series of books and movies (among other media) Books and media written by humans for other humans
 
Back
Top Bottom