Proof of God

[Jonsa]

To be sure, "in a completely different stadium" and playing a completely different game.

Oh no, its the same game.

Reconciling one's identity and existence with the foreknowledge of our individual mortality. Everything else is just filler.

 

[Jonsa]

Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful creator go to the immense effort of creating a Universe if it already knew the outcome on a second by second basis? Waste of time...and sillygisms.

but but but free will!!!!!!!

 

[Individual]

"
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)"

IF God(s) exist, what undeniable necessity exists as proof?

 

[Angel]

You really don't know anything about logic, do you? Just what you copied and pasted from wikipedia.

!!A == A

There's an active thread in the Philosophy forum called "Quag and the Angel: a dialogue" -- a thread started to dispute and decide matters such as which one of us knows about logic and which doesn't. I'd be delighted to meet you there to discuss our differences concerning modal logic.

 

[Angel]

whether or not there's anything that must exist is more then semantic if your going to claim something must exist

is your modal concept of necessity accurately reflecting the real world when you attach it to something you claim exists in the real world in this case god. how can you show this? can you show it?

I was taken aback by this post of yours -- surprised that it is actually a considered post on point. Allow me a minute to get over the shock and I'll reply in good faith.

 

[Angel]

:lamo

All you're doing is copying some stuff from the internet and/or a book, and out of wikipedia without even understanding it. Hence you not understanding that !!A == A. Hence why you can't defend your "logic", you have no idea what any of it means. :lamo





You're just babbling more nonsense, making ad hom attacks instead of addressing either point of my post whatsoever:

1. Step six is a double negative. !!A == A. Step six is sneaking in the conclusion.

....... 6. It is not the case that God must not exist. <==> It is the case that God must exist.

2. You can replace "God" with anything, and according to your "logic" it must exist.

Explain to me where I went wrong when I proved that the Christian God is a complete loser, and an asshole to boot? It was using your exact logic.

I've invited you in another post to discuss our relative understanding of logic in a Philosophy forum thread. I hope you accept the invitation.
Just to be responsive here, let me point out to you two things:
1. What you object to as a "double negative" is standard logic, and
2. Nothing can be substituted in the proof that isn't a necessary being, and there's only one of those if it exists.

 

[Angel]

There is only one reality in this universe but roughly 7 billion different perceptions of it.

How do you come to know this?

 

[Angel]

Your entire "proof" is semantic, and your use of semantics is nonsensical. If you think there's a problem with your semantics, then fix them.

Saying that something "necessarily exists" makes no more sense than saying that it "must exist."

And you've also equated "exists" with "necessarily exists." So one of your premises is effective just a semantic restatement of the thing you're trying to prove.

Incorrect. There's logic there as well.
FYI, as explained at the bottom of the OP, ""must exist" is my plain English rendition of the modal concept "necessarily exists."
FYI also, there is a categorical difference between X "necessarily exists" (or X "must exist") and "X exists."

 

[Angel]

Congratulations. Humankind has been trying to figure this out for millennia. You just did it in one single post. Have you applied for a noble peace prize yet? You ended the discussion once and for all.

Is the "noble peace prize" somewhat like the Nobel Peace Prize?
Why would a logical proof of God's existence redound to peace in the world?
Discussion is never ended, except by ideologues.

 

[Angel]

Oh no, its the same game.

Reconciling one's identity and existence with the foreknowledge of our individual mortality. Everything else is just filler.

Nicely put, though you should go with either "one" or "our" in both sentential slots and not mix them.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Proof of God

​

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.​

​

You are affirming the consequent in steps 8 and 9.

 

[bomberfox]

The problem with this and the kalam cosmological argument is that it skips many steps in the process only to arrive at some vague conclusion. Its mental masturbation as you cant just logic things into existence. Sorry the rationalists were wrong and empiricism is how you show a thing exists.

 

[Angel]

You are affirming the consequent in steps 8 and 9.

I don't believe so. The antecedent is the "if" clause; the consequent is what follows the "if" clause, yes?

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)

At #7 we concluded that "God must exist."
The axiom at #3 states "Whatever must exist, can exist."
So, in #8 we affirm the antecedent: "God must exist."

In #9 we affirm the antecedent derived from #8: "God can exist."
If a necessary being can exist, then it exists.

 

[Quag]

There's an active thread in the Philosophy forum called "Quag and the Angel: a dialogue" -- a thread started to dispute and decide matters such as which one of us knows about logic and which doesn't. I'd be delighted to meet you there to discuss our differences concerning modal logic.

A thread in which you refuse to actualy engage with me because you cannot defend your nonsense or rebut the logical errors I have pointed out in them

 

[Angel]

The problem with this and the kalam cosmological argument is that it skips many steps in the process only to arrive at some vague conclusion. Its mental masturbation as you cant just logic things into existence. Sorry the rationalists were wrong and empiricism is how you show a thing exists.

I don't know about the kalam proof, but as to the OP proof, what steps do you believe were skipped? (This is not a rhetorical question assuming "none" as an answer; I'd sincerely like to know what steps were skipped.)
You are correct that one "cant just logic things into existence." A logical proof goes merely to the truth of a proposition. But if the proposition is "God exists," and if it has been proved true by valid logic, then the only question is what does the true proposition mean?
Maybe the rationalists were wrong, but what makes you think the empiricists are right?

 

[Quag]

I've invited you in another post to discuss our relative understanding of logic in a Philosophy forum thread. I hope you accept the invitation.
Just to be responsive here, let me point out to you two things:
1. What you object to as a "double negative" is standard logic, and
2. Nothing can be substituted in the proof that isn't a necessary being, and there's only one of those if it exists.

Necessary being is just a philosophical concept without any more evidence or proof to it than God(s)
Basically you are making a circular argument and just trying to move where your beleif is placed (ignoring all the other logical arrors in your so called argument)
End result our argument fails because any argument base on beleif results in a conclusion that is nothing more than belief (well that and all the other logical errors already pointed out)

 

[Jonsa]

Nicely put, though you should go with either "one" or "our" in both sentential slots and not mix them.

literary license in order to emphasize that its reconciling the individual's perception (one) with the universal sapient realization of mortality (our).

 

[Jonsa]

How do you come to know this?

because the substance and behavior of our reality can be observed, analysed and measured. Some of it can even be understood.

And our puny human brains and fragile egos are absolutely incapable of comprehending the enormity of our insignificance within it.

 

[Angel]

literary license in order to emphasize that its reconciling the individual's perception (one) with the universal sapient realization of mortality (our).

Fair enough.

 

[weaver2]

I don't need the "proof." As I state in the Op, directly below the proof, the proof is posted in answer to the skeptical challenge to provide a proof.

What skeptical challenge?

 

[Angel]

because the substance and behavior of our reality can be observed, analysed and measured. Some of it can even be understood.

And our puny human brains and fragile egos are absolutely incapable of comprehending the enormity of our insignificance within it.

But the observation, analysis, and measurement are undertaken by that selfsame "puny human brain," are they not? Rationalism and empiricism both rest on the same foundation of sand.

 

[Nalu]

Proof of God

​

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.​

​

I don't mind people believing in a god with faith. Faith is irrational and illogical, but it can do good things. Where you demolish your entire position, though, is by claiming that a god exists with reason and proof. That takes faith to psychosis.

 

[dave8383]

Contingent Being and Necessary Being​

A contingent being is a being such that, if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist. (man. horse, tree, universe)

a necessary being is a being such that, if it exists, it cannot not-exist. (God)

Under blue sky, in bright sunlight,
One need not search around,
Asking around what Buddha is,
is liking the stolen goods in one's pocket and declaring oneself innocent.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I don't believe so. The antecedent is the "if" clause; the consequent is what follows the "if" clause, yes?

At #7 we concluded that "God must exist."
The axiom at #3 states "Whatever must exist, can exist."
So, in #8 we affirm the antecedent: "God must exist."

In #9 we affirm the antecedent derived from #8: "God can exist."
If a necessary being can exist, then it exists.

Apologies, #8 is not a fallacy. But #9 is. The "converse" of a conditional is not necessarily true.

In #1, you stated that if something exists, then it can exist. That does not imply the converse - it does not mean that if something can exist, then it does exist.

Additionally:

#4 is not a logical statement. It is not logically true that if God exists, then he must exist. You are neglecting the scope of the modality.
#5 is worded very confusingly. It is not clear whether you are trying to state (◻P or ~◻p) or (◻p or ◻~p). Only one of those two statements is true - either it is necessary that God exists, or it is not necessary that God exists. It does not logically follow that either it is necessary that God exists or it is necessary that God does not exist.
#6 is also worded confusingly, and entirely dependant on a misreading of the previous statement (#5).

 

[jet57]

Proof of God

​

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.​

​

Questioning God’s existence is denial.