In this thread, several people are debating “logical” proofs of the existence of God. I tried, I honestly tried, to read it and comprehend. I’m having problems. Hence this thread, because I’m very much in over my head over in that one and don’t want to derail anything.
As far as I can see, most of the logical arguments in that thread are so many pin-dancing angels. Is there any reality involved in these “necessary” and “possible” and “Perfect Being” debates, or is it all user-defined? I mean, if I point to a ball-point pen and say “This is a ball-point pen. It is 6 inches long and 1/4 inch in diameter and is a writing implement which works by adsorption of the liquid ink by a small metal sphere in the tip, which carries that ink to the paper on which the pen is being used to write,” then I’ve defined the pen in a concrete and real manner. The pen is real; it’s right there; I can see it, touch it, even taste it and smell it if I want. It works exactly as I described. There’s no shilly-shallying with the definitions.
But a definition like “the Perfect Being is necessary because it is defined as the convergence (or meeting) of all necessary existence” seems incomplete or unsatisfactory to me. Why is it defined this way? Because some 11th Century theologian defined it that way? Why is Anselm considered authoritative in any real sense?
And what is the whole “necessary” and “possible” thing, anyway?
Is any of this real? Is there evidence that these high-flown concepts actually exist and work the way they’re said to? Or is all of the academic form of logic nothing but smoke and mirrors?
If G-d could be proved, then faith would be valueless. The logical would believe and the rest might or might not. Belief in G-d would then just be a reflection of ability with deductive reasoning, not faith.
As far as I can tell the logic is pretty circular. I admit I haven’t followed that whole thread, but the arguments seem pretty subjective; usually based on one or more unprovable assumptions.
Don’t forget, philsophers have spent many life times trying to prove G-d and haven’t succeeded beyond convincing (some of) those who already believed.
Huh? Why is PosterChild -ing out the o in God like it is a swear word?
As for the OP, a logical proof might having meaning to the person making or reading it. A logical proof of the existence of God would have no meaning to mean, as I consider it a matter of faith.
I always like Ambrose Bierce’s definition of logic:
Which is only to say that if the premises are accepted, and if no extenuating circumstances are overlooked, the conclusion is probably true. Often, in my grad school studies of logic and philosophy, it seemed clear to me that the language of logic was used to befuddle rather than to clarify, even by some heavyweight philosophers. If we want to support the conclusion, we’ll overlook the possibility that the premises aren’t always true.
God can be proven, but i cannot prove God to you. I can’t prove anything to you, only God can. But then, there is also the work on your end of accepting that as truth. If your intent is to seek the truth and find out whether there really is a God, then you will find that there is. But, if your intent is to make yourself happy the quickest way possible, to keep yourself in control, and to not give up anything of your own, nothing will be proven to you. And, even thought this has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, none of those three things of your intent will occur.
At least in the Jewish faith, the word is never spelt out completely since you never want it to be destroyed in a disrespectful manner. Online it gets a little more fuzzy, but why take chances that someone would print it out?
erislover, I’m not quite sure what the tone of this was supposed to be. I wasn’t in those debates because they didn’t interest me. Neither did the one I’m spinning off of until the other spin-off thread, which I joined out of mild curiousity and was confronted with what looked like fairy dust and gossamer but people were calling logic.
And when I checked into the parent thread and saw someone saying that the ontological argument was also known as “common sense”, my common sense, after trying to make heads or tails of that ontological argument, was telling me it was complete and total castles in the sky. Nothing meant anything real. All the arguments were posited from an arbitrary viewpoint. It sounded more like a game than a serious discussion of the meaning of reality, mostly because “reality” was defined by the debators, like two kids defining their house rules for Paper, Rock, Scissors.
I’ve had limited experience with formal logic, I’ll admit. But at least before this I was led to believe that it had some kind of concrete grounding in the world we actually perceive.
If God truly exists and is as omniscient and omnipotent as his followers believe, then he could dipsy-doodle all around any arguments for/against his existence, logical or otherwise.
Yeah, but by default we assume something doesn’t exist until we get evidence (proof) that it does. Is there a green polka-dotted five-horned snortwacker beast in your broom closet?
It depends upon your view of the relationship of logic to the universe, to our existence, to everything.
Nowadays, it’s easy to wave off a proof of the existence of God as “so many pin-dancing angels”, but in other times, and to certain individuals today, logic is foundational to how people view the universe. The Enlightenment, the intellectual foundation of late Western society, took as fundamental that the universe was a rational place, governed by logic.
I don’t mean that to suggest that some people have made a religion of logic. I mean that, if your metaphysical view of the universe has logic as one of its cornerstones, then a logically consistent proof of the existence of God really means something, especially if you’re an athiest.
I was recently on a tour of the University of Oxford in England. The tour guide (also a professor at Oxford U) said there was a college debate about the existence of god, and the side arguing a non-existence won.
I don’t think that one can prove an actuality just from analyzing a definition, and that’s that.
I also think metaphysical arguments too often severely abuse the medium of intelligible communication to reach their conclusions, or even to be considered at all.
rjung! How did you know! As a matter of fact, I do just happen to have a green polka-dotted five-horned snortwacker beast in my broom closet! (He only comes out when I’ve had a sufficient quantity of drinks with small pink parsols…)
I have read the thread in question. I can follow the reasoning, and have not found any obvious flaws in the argument. I have a troubling suspicion that the main advantage this argument has over others that I have heard is that the unvaluable[sup]TM[/sup] assertions have been moved from the body of the argument to the definitions. I am not entirely (OK, not at all) competent to refute, or assert the validity of the proof. But, I do see some important elements of the proposal of such a proof, and its consideration by logicians.
Here we have the demonstrated exercise of reason, in the matter of the existence of God. It provides an excellent support for the contention often put forth that one can have a thinking, rational, and even erudite mind, and yet believe that there is a God. While the counter argument has always been erroneous, it is nice to have an example like this, with which the non academic theist can bludgeon an annoying ad hominem attacker into stunned silence. Belief in God is at least not proof of the absence of logical thinking. That much stands as proven. It is a great comfort for those who generally eschew such debates that it can be done in an entirely intellectual frame of reference.
It does seem to me that the implication of the argument seems to say that I can prove God, only if I do not know God. Given the choice, I remain content to be a fool who knows and loves the Lord, and accepts that proof is beyond me. But I could be wrong; I often am.
The logical proofs of God you refer to are interesting but in the end are simply the use of logical algebras and set theory to parse out the validity of the sequence of observations, assumptions and conclusions one might make in their briefs for, or against, the existence of God.
This is why it’s confusing. Do not mistake these discussions with real, empirical proof (or dis-proof) of the existence of God. In the end it’s all about logical probabilities and possibilities which are handy conceptual keystones in defining our world. While the questions posed re the existence (or non-existence) of God are important in a philosophical sense, in the world of logical proofs they are essentially dressed up math and ontological engineering problems that proceed from propositions about the possibilities (or not) of the existence of various infinities. Infinities are real, powerful and useful tools and exist conceptually, but melding them into concrete, graspable entities in the empirical world is another matter entirely and is beyond the scope (in real world terms) of the debates you reference.
IMO the two main notes of interest in that debate that help to frame the question(s) you pose are outlined below:
