I don’t think it is possible to prove to others that god exists. And I wouldn’t agree that sages suffer from self delusions in the way I understand you are using the term.
It is logic that shows we cannot prove we exist. If I cannot prove I exist I certainly cannot prove you or anyone else exists. That being the case who is there to prove anything to?
Even if I knew god existed I might still only “believe” that you did. If this existence is an illusion does it not have to stand in relation to something real?
How can an illusion stand on its own? I can only know that this manifested universe is an illusion or that god exists within my own consciousness. It can’t be empirically proven since we are uncertain about the nature of reality.
What world?
You can’t prove you exist. You can’t prove anyone else exists. You can’t prove the world exists. How do you think a god can be proven to exist under these circumstances?
Incorrect. The proof we discussed before was Tisthammer’s (a theist). This proof is Suber’s (an atheist).
Paper Geek wrote:
Not unless you define those as Necessary Existence, in which case you’re merely using different words to mean Supreme Being. You cannot make pigs fly by defining “fly” to mean “wallow in mud”.
If you have found any “obviously damaged logic”, you must rush to publish it right away! You will become famous. Variations of this proof have been under discussion and scrutiny for more than ten years now among the world’s most eminent logicians and philosophers. Not one has declared the proof to be invalid.
There is simply no satisfying closed-minded materialists. Unlike Suber and other accomplished materialist philosophers, these who cry “give me non-metaphorical evidence!” and then when given cry “I don’t know what that means!” cling jealously to their faith in Nogod. I gave Czar what he asked for. He made a promise. Que sera sera, I reckon.
There have to be, as I see it, four things which we accept in any conversation about logic, or else it always comes down to the fact that we have no way of knowing if everything is presented correctly.
We have to assume that there are other consciousnesses than our own.
We have to assume that they operate in the same basic way as our own.
We have to assume that our perceptions are as current science says they are (with, perhaps, a degree of uncertainty).
We have to assume that time progresses forward locally.
These are obviously not proven, but without them, I don’t see any way of proving anything.
But we’re really digressing, so let me get back to lekatt.
Lekatt: I may have given a false impression. I do not believe that the actual logical operations you performed are incorrect. I believe the following assumptions are incorrect. I will provide my reasoning.
<>G (It is possible that God exists)
G -> G (If God exists necessarily, then He exists in actuality — the Modal Axiom)
G v ~G (Either God exists necessarily, or He doesn’t — Excluded Middle)
Note: I am not trying to prove that it is impossible for God to exist.
One: Your statements provide no meaning of the term ‘God’. The only thing you note about God is that It has a necessary existance, which is all fine and dandy, but why does God have a necissary existance while both pixies and alien conspiracies do not?
Two: Your statement 5 assumes that God cannot possibly exist in a state other than ‘fully existant’. Many people would disagree with you, especially since you have not defined God. If God is not of this universe, how can he exist in it? Unless, of course, you’re going for a kind of Buddhist God… which you failed to define.
Even more basic, God has many different, argued properties. If God is, for example, ‘Love’, then he certainly doesn’t exist as usually defined: he’s an extension of Love and has none of the talkin’, smitin’ properties assigned him by most Christian religions, therefore only ‘partially’ existing as defined.
Three: Your statement 2 assumes it is possible that God exists. It is also possible that purple elephants fly out of my buttocks, but due to a lack of pain in that region, I doubt it. You cannot prove something by stating that it is possible to exist: you prove something by stating with inexplicable phenominon and finding the best (most reasonable) explanation for what is occuring. Any good scientist knows that you do not set out seeking to prove God (or any specific thing): you set out to explain certain phenomina. Any other goal is highly suspect.
Four: Your statement 4 is where the crux of the whole assertation comes crumbling down in my opinion. Can you prove this statement in a way that isn’t relying on a language that assumes a closed world and modal existance? Can you prove that one line in English, perhaps applying to to, I don’t know, reality?
I never much liked formulaec logic. The idea is good: strip away the debris that a natural language causes. The execution is bad: strip away all the necessary information that a natural language provides.
The ontological proof more and more strikes me as being akin to leading Ezekiel to the valley of dry bones, pointing, and saying “Look at the bones! Look!” And then sniffing dismissively when he’s unimpressed.
Clothing the dry bones in flesh is another thing entirely.
Well that pretty much closes the materialists door.
Take for granted your most basic tools, ( human perception, thinking and consciousness ) then go looking for a proof of god’s existence.
Now that sounds like a good rule to follow.
That we cannot prove that this world exists, or that we exist, may be a Clue as to true nature of ourselves and to god’s existence.
sigh
Ask a simple question of Lib, and what you get get back are favored definitions and a mathematical equation. It is this type of answer that drives away potential Christians in droves, imho. Before I respond to this “answer”, though, please try to remember what I have said time and time again-disagreement does not equal misunderstanding.
First, I will assume that the word you picked when using the dictionary was “God”, not “Diety”, and we can all assume that different dictionaries will have different definitions, thus the phrase “the collection of attributes that make up his nature” is a not a constant unless it is established by all that this definition of this edition of Webster’s is the one all philosophers and religionists are agreed upon.
Now while the nature of existence is studied in the field of ontology(the most general branch of metaphysics), misuse of the Kripke logic model is possible if favored assumptions a plugged into the equation. Now while the strongest possible modality is necessity, we cannot say that strongest possible modality is the only modality available. That is the reason “possibility” and “certainty” have different definitions in the dictionary. Using the very broad definition of God that you have cobbled together at most makes him very possible, but nowwhere near a Necessary Existence.
1.If God exists, then we have to assume that unfailing and unending yet unmeasurable perfection exists all around us. This is a mighty big pill you are asking us to swallow.
2. Until it is shown that the universe could not possibly exist without the perfect God shown in 1, it will be hard to show the possibility of a God.
3. It is not necessary that quite a few things do not exist-Bigfoot, ftl travel, fairies, etc. you cannot equate unnecessary to not exist with necessary to exist.
4. You have yet to show the necessity of a God, and thus his actuality is still in question.
5. Null statement. Either he exists or he doesn’t. We know.
6. If something does not exist necessarily, it is possible that it exists unnecessarily. Take Hollywood for example.
7. Substitution for unproven postulations.
8. See 6. A God that exists but is unnecessary is totally possible. I’m not saying it’s probable-just possible.
9. See 8. And 6.
10. Ditto
11. Ditto.
IMHO, using the shoe-horn approach to force approved(by you) definitions of philosophical words and terms into a mathematical equation might possibly reenforce your own belief structure, but it presupposes a God-Nature that a non believer will not have in the first place.
When you could outright show that Anselm’s argument was invalid, you were delighted that a valid argument could not be formed. But now that the argument has indeed been formed validly, your delight has morphed into a general huffiness. Before, it was like the world might end if the proof’s conclusion were valid. Now that it is, the world has become meaningless.
There is one and only one answer that would please you, and that is if I said that God does not exist, but I won’t be saying that, so you won’t ever be pleased. You gave your word that if you didn’t understand, the burden is on you. Live with it.
Well then your primary assumption is wrong. I did use the word “Deity”, except that I spelled it correctly.
Look, I understand that you’re frustrated. But if nothing else, at least be a man of your word.
You fool. They’re not questioning the validity of the argument, they’re questioning the validity of your interpretation of that argument.
Is ‘God’ the thing which you claim must necessarily exist, or is it ‘Love’? If it’s both, then you must demonstrate why one concept requires the other.
While I don’t have a high opinion of Lib, insults in GD are uncalled for. If you want to call him a fool, I suggest you start a Pit thread, and inaugurate yet another pile-on.
Who is the “you” here? Because it’s not me–I’m not an atheist. The world is neither ending, nor meaningless; it is ablaze with immanent holy fire. These bones live.
But the proof is merely the valley of them. The bones are arranged in the proper connection now, but that’s still very far from flesh.
Name calling of any sort is not permitted in Great Debates, no matter how you reword the insult.
Lib, though I assumed wrong, when you look up “Deity” in different dictionaries, you still don’t have the standard answer that is somewhat necessary for your handpicked mathematical formula to work. Also, save the cheap “The only answer you’d accept would be(fill in the blank), and I won’t give you what you want” comments for loud radio talkshow hosts that can only win arguments by pretending to give both sides of an argument. I use the English language to ask questions in a straightforward manner, and if I ask a question, that is the exact question I mean to ask. I do not use subterfuge to “trick” people into giving answers I want to hear.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I mispelled “Deity”. I gave a point by point showing that I understood and disagreed with your mathematical premise(and by “your” I mean that you presented it here, not that you invented it) and you didn’t want to discuss any of it. But you got me on a spelling error.
Nobody’s perfect.
Where’s the line between describing Libertarian and insulting him?
If I say that he’s being utterly irrational, unreasonable, and arrogant, those are more-or-less insults. If I say that his current arguments are irrational, unreasonable, and arrogant, that might be interpretable as a counter-argument… but if I point out that Lib’s arguments are all this way, that implies the first statements.
All right, let’s see if I can summon up enough self-control to attack Lib’s arguments instead of Lib personally.
Below is Lib’s argument that God (as defined as a thing that exists in all probabilities) must exist. As of this post, we have not yet established exactly what it means for something to exist, but I’ll accept Lib’s implied definition for the sake of the argument.
This argument is logically valid. However, it requires certain assumptions which aren’t logically justifiable.
What Lib seems to fail to realize is that we’re not merely dealing with a set of possible worlds, we’re dealing with the set of sets of possible worlds. We must consider sets in which it’s impossible for God to exist as well as sets in which God exists. Otherwise, we’re just taking the conclusion for granted.
If something has the property of necessary existence, and it exists, then it must exist. Agreed. But what do we mean by saying that something might exist? Probability is a way of modeling and understanding things that happen, but it’s not at all clear that a possibility can actually be said to exist. We might say equally reasonably that the universe can be in only one configuration and that everything that happens (will happen, has happened) is necessary and inevitable.
Lib’s Assumption #2 is not warranted. We have no reason to think that it’s necessarily the case that necessary existence is possible. And you know what happens when Libertarian assumes…
