Just to clarify one thing, this thread isn’t really about the “God” part of “logical proofs of God”, but about the “logic” part of it.
So, from what I’m understanding, the logic in use not only has no connection to any objective observance of our actual present reality, but isn’t meant to. It’s completely internally consistent given the agreed-upon set of assumptions, which may or may not correspond to anything that affects the real universe.
Is this close to correct?
jayjay
What the heck does this even mean? It is only a real religion if you don’t know if what you believe is true or not? The proof of God lies in the fact that there is not much evidence of his or hers existance?
I first saw this sort of reasoning in one of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy books. I thought is was a sort of amusing little paradox. I had no idea that people took such lines of reasoning seriously.
The problem with “proving” anything (using deductive logic, of course) is that the results always depend on your axioms – the assumptions you make as to what you’ll take as “given” in essaying your proof.
Inductive logic works differently – but itself has some hidden axioms, such as that we always perceive everything worth perceiving, and perceive it accurately – or at least can do so, and can eliminate misperceptions.
Bottom line is that any “proof” of anything using either method can be discredited by attacking the axioms underlying it.
However, credo, ergo sum.
Up to a point, Jay.
It is also true of most of science, as well. Think of it as a preliminary test of a universal model that it must pass the test of ontological consistency, and validity, before it can be considered as a valid map of the territory we accept as reality.
If the existence of God were not ontologically valid, it would have a profound importance in the interaction of religion and science. Since it appears that is not the case, it allows the rational mind to accept limits far larger than the extended senses which provide “observations” on reality. If an ontological failure of the current scientific model of cosmology were found, it would require an immediate reevaluation of the model itself, to see if it relied on the failed elements for any unproven assertive elements. It doesn’t disprove the observations made, but shines a light on the conclusions drawn from those observations.
The difference between the realm of the spiritual an concrete is only slightly narrowed by such a proof, however it is not widened, which is noteworthy, in a philosophic sense.
Tris
Short answer? No.
Ambrose Bierce had a point- if God exists he and his nature are so far beyond the bounds of the rules we’ve observed, the perceptions we’ve managed to collect, the logic we’ve created.
You’re trying to apply human logic based on human experience to the problem of whether or not there is an all-powerful and eternal being (and there’s the whole question of whether or not God is a “being”…)? All evidence acquired by human observation would point to the fact that every living thing has limited abilities and eventually dies, yet most hardcore logical people would agree that it’s silly to apply those standards to the question of God, why would they think that any human observation applies?
Beside that, you have a fairly limited perception of the world around you, based on all kinds of factors you have limited control over- your brain chemistry is geared one way instead of another, causing you to take in stimulus as it “really exists.” Swallow a tiny amount (in the micrograms range) of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, and soon your brain chemistry switches around and objects acquire entirely new sets of properties. If people were born with this kind of perception in the exact same environment as we currently live and observed the properties of objects and rules of existence we would reach entirely different conclusions. The world wouldn’t be any different, and we wouldn’t be “wrong”, yet the very basic rules of life on Earth would be totally different. Those standards of logic would be no more or less applicable to discerning the existence of God.
Basically, there are too many variables that are completely out of control and are usually ignored entirely to even begin to assume we can use our observations here on earth to define the existence or non-existence of a higher being.
That applies to the people who believe they have absolute proof of God’s existence, and those who say that there is no proof of God and therefore they will never believe. Someone can choose to believe in God and find plenty of reasons to continue to hold that belief, good for them. I have difficulty understanding people who say that they’ve never seen proof of God, so therefore there is not one (Athiests). People who say that they don’t know whether or not there is a God, and that they don’t have any idea what his nature is (Agnostics) make more sense to me.
What I’m saying is that we lack the necessary knowledge to declare God to exist or not to exist, and we probably lack the facilities to do so even if we had that information.
Also, Athiesm is as dogmatic as many religions- declaring that you know for a fact there is no God makes no more sense than declaring that you know for a fact that there is one.
LC
I would beg to differ with Lucki Chaarm.
It makes perfect sense to ask if a Perfect Being is a logical necessity. Or at least to the same extent that it makes perfect sense as to ask why a chair is a chair. Or if we all really see the same colors. I was humorously mocked by a few staunch pragmatists during my adolescence for engaging in such apparently futile questions. My father used to say “Look, I don’t care why a chair is a chair. All I care is that I sit on them”. And, of course he had a point. If you believe meaning to be entirely emergent from functionality ;).
The problem philosophy faces in the public court is that it examines seemingly obvious fundaments of our lives. It puts under the loop things we often take for granted. Another wise person once burnt me with a cigarette lighter when I said “we need to ask ourselves what reality is, I mean, what it really is”. To this day, I thank him wholeheartedly for his painful demonstration. What’s important to realize is that philosophy asks these questions to determine issues vital for our existence. How should we govern ourselves? What is justice? How can I trust you? Are these scientific findings factual? What responsibilities does the individual have to society?
Obviously, the concept God has and continuous to play an extremely import role in how we shape our human environment. You could take the stand that “it’s just a matter of faith”. Which you could do for just about anything. But when we start talking about the separation of state and church, ohhh, that’s when it gets volatile. Or whether individual rights are more important than collective rights. Or if Shariah is acceptable law. Or if we should trust someone just because she happens to be a Doctor of Medicine.
Logic isn’t a meaningless game. Its greatest challenge, though, is indeed whether the premises on which its conclusions are drawn are true or false. This is where what Libertarian introduced as synthetic a priori becomes relevant. There are various ways explain what synthetic a priori means. On the surface of it, it means known simply by its virtue of being obviously true. Another spin is that a proposition’s truth value is known by virtue of the meaning of the terms involved (“American Philosophers at Work: The Philosophic Scene in the United States. Is there a Synthetic A Priori? Wilfrid Sellars”, New York, Criterion Books, 1956).
What does “God exists” mean? What is a Perfect Being? Does perfection imply necessary existence? Is a divine will self-evident? Can anything else than God be said to be Perfect? Can God be equivocated with Tao? Are we just speaking about the All Possible Worlds per say? These are by no means trivial question for foolish academicians. If they were, being born again wouldn’t be such a momentous event for so many Christians.
As an atheist, it’s as important for me to ground my belief in reality as it is for someone who is religious. “There is no divine will, only an eternal process” carries the same profound implications for me as “God” does for a theist. If I have to face up to the fact that a Perfect Being with a divine will exercises divine judgment on what I do, I will have to slightly alter my behavior and attitude to many human institutions. Therefore, since it would impact my life style, I have to take an ontological proof very seriously. Or, perhaps, by examining such an argument and premises on which it is based, I will at least see some convergences between my beliefs and those of a theist. This would bring us closer and potentially create bridges where there’s otherwise unnecessary dissent and confrontation.
There are already many excellent answers and comments in here. Astro has pretty well covered it, and I applaud him (or her) for the very careful way he said what he said, but even more importantly for what he didn’t say.
Then, Jayjay pretty well understood it when she said that modal logic (which is her interest rather than the argument itself) is an internally consistent system for manipulation of concepts. Pretty much any sort of concepts, so long as they are necessary or possible (and in some cases, actual). But nonexistent concepts are not definable modally.
But like Tris said, that’s pretty much true of every philosophical discipline, not just ontology. Science, one branch of philosophy, is itself replete with abstract organizational structures. Without the application of sound ontological principles, physics would still be hocus-pocus nonsense like alchemy.
The only thing that has been indisputably determined as a result of our debate in the other thread is that hard atheism is the most untenable philosophical position toward God that there is. It was explained more technically there, but here I’ll just put it this way. In order to know that God does not exist, you must know everything there is to know. (Knowing that God does exist, on the other hand, requires a mere single experience.)
With respect to those who say that the modern ontological proofs say nothing about the “Christian God” per se, they’re right. And in fact, an ontological proof of that particular “God” would be prohibitively difficult. The definition alone might take more time than remains for the universe.
Finally, to those who say that the ontological proofs are somehow “meaningless” or irrelevant to “real life”, I say that that is the greatest possible irony. 
“”“Knowing that God does exist, on the other hand, requires a mere single experience”"""
False.
Properties of God, that make God meaningful in a theistic sense, hinge on Gods ability to know all things. Unless you know all things as well, you cannot corroborate a liar (almost omniscient, but fudging the rest) from the genuine product.
-Justhink
“”"“Do “logical” proofs of God mean anything?”"""
This is actually a question, “Does logic mean anything?”
The subject is irrelevant to the core of the question.
I am not personally aware of a conclusive argument along these lines. “Meaning”, in this sense, is its own God… as mysterious as the arguments about deity specifics themselves.
Does this thread mean anything to you?
-Justhink
Well, it’s nice to see that this particular strawman has been thoroughly slain.
Next up: Science has shown the world wasn’t created in six 24-hour days, proving that there is no God!
What would a “single experience” that shows the existence of God be ?
An ontological proof of the Christian God (or any God) is inherently impossible.
I don’t think that was quite established. I’d hazard a guess that there are many people (on this board) who are pretty confident in the non-existence of many things that have not been demonstrated to exist. (For example elves that move your car keys overnight, or one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eaters. They are just as likely to exist as G-d by that arguement and therefore require just as much acceptance.)
Atheists seem to be just like specific-theists (Christians/Muslims/Hindus/etc). The only difference is they don’t make an exception in their disbelief for one “version” of the supernatural. There have been a large variety of gods throughout history that most religious people (even those on this board) firmly do not believe (and so are atheistic in relation to those theisms).
Well, gazpacho you seem to be saying that “real” religions can prove the existence of G-d without the need for faith? I don’t follow your HHGG referrence, but you do seem to be confusing faith with proof the way BlueMit11 is when s/he says s/he can “prove” G-d but not to anyone else.
The proofs of G-d rely on assumptions that are not necessarily reliable. The proofs may be internally consistent, but their external relevance is not demonstrated.
PC
This seems like the argument that to know the properties of a proton, you must examine every proton in the universe. If we find no evidence for God in this corner of the universe, must we examine the entire universe and possibly others to say that we have “no evidence”? This I reject.
rsa,
Having no evidence of existence is insufficient for proof of non existence.
The properties of protons are inferred to be uniform across the universe, not proven to be so. The reliability of that inference is very high, but it remains an inference.
Arguing logic requires logic. Belief can be asserted without proof, but has only the weight of an assertion.
Tris
Not really. One of my main points was that if there is a “God” as that term is typically defined in my culture (there’s another massive perception problem), he/she/it exists on totally different terms from those of the human realm. Therefore it is silly to try to use logic gathered by observing the human realm to prove or disprove God.
The existence of strange creatures that have never been observed is much simpler. Assuming that we are discussing these creatures as being entirely natural in essence, we can discuss them with logic based on whatever we’ve seen here that’s relevant to the case.
If we assume these creatures are supernatural in nature, then the above God arguments apply and it’s really not your problem. If there is a group of people who believe that there are fairies that travel to and from this reality at their whim and these fairies are the creators of human life, basic human logic no longer applies. We are dealing with something spiritual, which is on an entirely different (and no less legitimate, if not more so IMO) level from the logical. You would be foolish to try to apply your logic and convince them that the fairies don’t exist, and they would be equally foolish to try to convince you of that the fairies DO exist using that logic. You might be able to spend time with them discussing spiritual matters and convince them to seek a higher authority on their feelings, and that may or may not change their opinions on the existance of fairies.
Spiritual questions must be answered through spiritual means, and not everyone reaches the same conclusions. Logic works the same way. The two don’t intersect too well, and that’s fine, they don’t have to.
MEBuckner- You say that Lib and I are using straw men, but I don’t see how it’s a straw man to say that a person who is an Athiest believes that there is NOT a God. A person who believes there MAY BE a God would be an Agnostic, no? Please explain your position rather than just making an without backing yourself up, that way it is possible to respond to your point.
I hardly feel that defining an Athiest as someone who believes there is no God is comparable to saying that a logical fallacy in the Bible means there is no God. Does anyone think that makes any sense? Please explain.
LC
People who call themselves atheists usually define the term to mean “someone who does not have a belief in God”. Not “the existence of God has been disproven”, but “I have seen no evidence to convince me of the hypothesis”. This is, I think, slightly different from “there may be a God”, and it definitely lacks the agnostic’s assertion that the question is in principle unknowable–perhaps new evidence will be found which helps to shed new light on the problem one way or the other.
The logical fallacy I was trying to point out is that of defining your opponent in the most extreme light, and then arguing against that position, when in fact it isn’t how your opponent would state his position–the classic “straw man” fallacy. I don’t think Lib is quite doing that, but it is worth pointing out that “hard atheists” of the type he seems to be referring to are not really representative of atheists in general. He might reply that they do exist; but then, so do Christians who insist that the world was created in 6 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago. The findings of modern science in fact weigh very heavily against that view, so in effect paleontologists and geologist and astronomers have “disproved their God”.
(It’s also worth pointing out, on a rather tangential point, that a single person may have a variety of attitudes of lack of knowledge, lack of belief in, or positive disbelief in various definitions of “God”, as the God of Abraham and Isaac, the Ontologically Perfect Being, or an intelligent cosmic creator of otherwise unspecified attributes. Someone may be pretty darned certain that the entity described by a particular set of theologians is nonexistent, while being more “agnostic” about the question of a Creator more generally.)
I had no intention of being overly snippy, jayjay, but conceptualizing reality has been a longstanding problem for philosophers and scientists since recorded history. I personally find philosophy incredibly important, and I constantly find references to navel-gazing, angel-dancing, and handwaiving to be slightly annoying.
You ask, do logical proofs of God mean anything, and then clarify the stress on the logic. Do logical proofs of anything mean anything? Of course they do! Logic is one of the many symbol-sets and systems that we use to understand this mess we’re in. Ayn Rand has said that one can avoid reality, but one cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Truer words were never spoken, whether you think she was a crazy old bat or not. Understanding reality isn’t angels dancing on pins, and angels dancing on pins is, to some people, a rather interesting question about the nature of beings which they think exist.
You think a ball point pen exists, it is real, and it fits in your hand. You like empirical demonstrations. Yet a long line of empiricists have attacked such knowledge, beginning largely with Hume, moving on to Kant, and up to the present day. The matter might not ever be solved, but its examination serves to clarify just what the hell we mean when we do anything.
Is the question, “What is existence?” so unimportant when you hold a pen in your hand? Isn’t declaring it real and available accepting “existence”? And don’t you depend on logic to assert its existence anyway: “I feel it and see it; therefore it is.”
I don’t mind people waving off philosophical discussion; it simply isn’t for everyone. But when people attempt to attack it as unimportant they do so from a position that itself came from such handwaving.
Hume denied that tautologies say anything about the world. Kant told us that our very existence gave us special knowledge that was neither logical nor empirical in nature. Russell (and a group of others besides him) felt that everything that could be understood was either a function of the language used to express it or able to be demonstrated, that in fact metaphysical propositions are strictly meaningless (contrary especially to Kant). Wittgenstein showed us that our languages shape the way we think about the world, and also showed us that the way we think about the world is revealed by our language, and as he said, “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence” (only later to go against this very proposition).
Why is rejecting Anselm a good idea? The questions are logically opposite and should be answerable in the same manner, yet one seems so obvious to you. Why? Is the answer to that like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Some people feel a god of some kind exists, others think ball point pens exist, and both have boon looking for quite some time at a proof that would demonstrate that these things’ existence is necessary. Some people just like to toy with logic and see what its limitations are, the study of which is a form of logic in a sense. Some people just pass over it in silence. You don’t choose silence, yet look to explanation as handwaiving. I do not understand.
“”"“I don’t mind people waving off philosophical discussion; it simply isn’t for everyone. But when people attempt to attack it as unimportant they do so from a position that itself came from such handwaving.”""""
This ties in with an atheist thread I just joined…
How does one convey an opinion about the ills of technology without using technology to do so (aka. uni-bomber)?
How does one express a lack of belief without using belief to do so? (aka. atheism)?
Is it better to be non-hypocritical in all instances? Would that not collapse the Rand quote you presented?
-Justhink
I use the same arguments to (ds)prove the existence of God.
I still get harassed by the door-to-door evangelists, however.
Buck
If you do not argue from the viewpoint of hard atheism, then the comment made about it is not intended to address your argument, and is therefore not a strawman. There are other people out there, besides you, making arguments. If, on the other hand, you are a hard atheist, then the comment does directly address your argument, and thus is not a strawman either way.
As Gaudere and others have explained it to me, the hard atheist is the person who believes categorically that there is no God and that God’s existence is not possible.
A soft atheist, on the other hand, simply does not believe in God. He merely lacks such a belief, and does not attempt to fill the void of his skepticism with any positive assertion about NoGod.
Soft atheism does not meet with the same ontological snafu that hard atheism does. But hard atheism, as explained in the other thread, constitutes a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition, and is therefore self-contradictory. If you disagree, then please make a case.
There is some grumbling afoot that the same existential argument could be made for closet fairies that is made for God, but that is not the case unless you define your closet fairies the same way God is defined by Tisthammer et al, as the convergence of all perfect existence.
If you define them otherwise, then you must make a different case with different axioms and different inferences.