Proof of God

[Angel]

Right. What in the soundness of the argument changes based on a subject change of "God" to Zeus, Allah, Odin, little green men from outer space, big foot, etc?

You seem to have some more unstated premises going on, here. I see nothing in the premises or the conclusion that is specific to the concept of a "God" and nothing else.

Leaving aside the silliness of bigfoot and the science fiction of aliens, the entities you name all represent human attempts to define the nature of god, as given by various stories about god contained in 1000 religions. My proof has nothing to say about the nature of God; my proof goes only to the existence of God -- God as the logical first principle.

So, you are implying that which you are trying to prove by means of a logical argument? Yeah, that's not going to work.

Correct. Probably not.
Welcome to the forum.

 

[Drowning Man]

Leaving aside the silliness of bigfoot and the science fiction of aliens, the entities you name all represent human attempts to define the nature of god, as given by various stories about god contained in 1000 religions. My proof has nothing to say about the nature of God; my proof goes only to the existence of God -- God as the logical first principle.

In other words, nothing. You may consider big foot and aliens "silly", but so may some consider your "God". There is nothing specific in the premises nor the conclusion that is specific to a "God"s existence any more anything else that we don't have specific reason to believe exists. And that is the point. It's a rather meaningless argument because even if it did work, it can be used to justify the little invisible men in your TV set who draws the image on your screen just as well as your deity.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks!

 

[Angel]

In other words, nothing. You may consider big foot and aliens "silly", but so may some consider your "God". There is nothing specific in the premises nor the conclusion that is specific to a "God"s existence any more anything else that we don't have specific reason to believe exists. And that is the point. It's a rather meaningless argument because even if it did work, it can be used to justify the little invisible men in your TV set who draws the image on your screen just as well as your deity.

"God" means God. Bigfoot means Bigfoot. Aliens means Aliens.

There is a sharp distinction to be drawn philosophically between the question of the existence of God and the question of the nature of God. The latter is the province of religion and has nothing to do with my proof, or with my interest in discussing God in this forum. Stories about the nature of God (religious doctrine) are matters of faith. My interest is in discussing the existence of God philosophically, and not at all in discussing religious faith.

The silliness to which Internet Skepticism is prone results in talk of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot, Santa Claus. This is silliness spawned by the New Atheism, and it is not worth a moment's serious consideration.

 

[Drowning Man]

"God" means God. Bigfoot means Bigfoot. Aliens means Aliens.

There is a sharp distinction to be drawn philosophically between the question of the existence of God and the question of the nature of God. The latter is the province of religion and has nothing to do with my proof, or with my interest in discussing God in this forum. Stories about the nature of God (religious doctrine) are matters of faith. My interest is in discussing the existence of God philosophically, and not at all in discussing religious faith.

The silliness to which Internet Skepticism is prone results in talk of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bigfoot, Santa Claus. This is silliness spawned by the New Atheism, and it is not worth a moment's serious consideration.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. You laid out a logical argument with premises and supposedly, a conclusion that logically follows from those premises. There is nothing in your argument that is specific to the subject ("God"). Because of that, anything that we don't have reason to believe in can be substituted for that subject and the logical argument follows (setting aside for a moment the assumption that the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows).

That's not good for the validity of your argument.

Let's say that I have a logical argument for why vanilla tastes better than strawberry. Let's say that we ignore validity and soundness of the argument for a moment, but just concentrate on the argument, itself. The argument itself, isn't intrinsic to what vanilla or strawberry tastes like at all.

1. Vanilla is white
2. White is the best color
3. Strawberry isn't white
4. Strawberry isn't the best color
5. Vanilla is better than Strawberry.

I can change "Vanilla" to "Chalk" and the argument would then prove that "Chalk" tastes better than Strawberry.

Get what I'm saying? There is nothing in that argument specific to "God", so you can substitute anything that we don't have reason to believe in for "God" and the argument works the same...therefore, it doesn't work.

What I'm doing is basically a Reductio ad absurdum type of argument. I'm showing that if you follow the logic of this argument, it produces poor results, regardless of when it is valid and sound.

 

[Angel]

Again, you seem to be missing the point. You laid out a logical argument with premises and supposedly, a conclusion that logically follows from those premises. There is nothing in your argument that is specific to the subject ("God"). Because of that, anything that we don't have reason to believe in can be substituted for that subject and the logical argument follows (setting aside for a moment the assumption that the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows).

That's not good for the validity of your argument.

I got your point and replied to it twice. This will be the third time.
Words have meaning. Meaning carries with it certain commitments to certain things and not to everything else. You cannot substitute any terms you like into a valid form of logic and preserve the validity and soundness of the argument. God is God, not Bigfoot. An argument with God as a term will not work if you substitute Bigfoot for God.

 

[Drowning Man]

I got your point and replied to it twice. This will be the third time.
Words have meaning. Meaning carries with it certain commitments to certain things and not to everything else. You cannot substitute any terms you like into a valid form of logic and preserve the validity and soundness of the argument. God is God, not Bigfoot. An argument with God as a term will not work if you substitute Bigfoot for God.

Okay. I don't want to beat a dead horse. You seem to acknowledge that the argument doesn't work on face value, but only works if the assumptions that you make about "God" are true that are implied in the meaning of the word, "God".

That's all fine and well, but from my point of view, that makes this argument DOA. If not all of the relevant assumptions are spelled out and determined to be true, you can't have a sound argument.

It would be like my saying:

1. Basketball uses a ball
2. Therefore basketball is the best sport.

I point out that Football uses a ball, and you say that changes the argument and implied in the word Basketball makes it a best sport.

/shrug

OK. The reason I kind of hounded you on this is that I made myself a promise that if I ever found reason to believe in a "God" or set of gods, that I would be honest enough to do that. At this point, I'll only take two forms of evidence...personal revelation or a logical proof that is both valid and sound that has the conclusion that such a being exists. So when I see an argument like the one you posted, I want to take a good hard look at it.

Anyway, cheers!

 

[devildavid]

I got your point and replied to it twice. This will be the third time.
Words have meaning. Meaning carries with it certain commitments to certain things and not to everything else. You cannot substitute any terms you like into a valid form of logic and preserve the validity and soundness of the argument. God is God, not Bigfoot. An argument with God as a term will not work if you substitute Bigfoot for God.

Yet there is no agreed upon definition of God with a capital G. There is no single "commitment" to any particular meaning for that word. Both human history and human created philosophy bear that out. That is because it is make believe. Valid forms of logic do not make the premises true, they only make the argument logically valid. Arguments are not a source of what it real.

 

[devildavid]

What tells you that God is imaginary? And remember, Voltaire is watching you.

Because it is not real. Just like any other imaginary thing.

 

[devildavid]

It's a definition.

Whose definition?

 

[devildavid]

It's logic.

Whose logic?

 

[devildavid]

Some people have none...

Like you?

 

[devildavid]

God may exist whether you allow for the possibility or not. Your not wanting to think about the question beyond a casual denial doesn't factor into whether or not God exists.

Anything may exist if it only requires us to imagine it.

 

[Individual]

Possibility (can) and Necessity (must) are two distinct modal categories. Possibility attaches to contingent being -- being that came into existence and goes out of existence and might not have existed in the first place. This does not fit the concept of God. God, if existing, is a necessary being -- being that did not come into existence or go out of existence and could not not-have-existed.

Your "Proof" begins with a belief in a man created unproven/unprovable human created concept of a God, therefore the claim of "If God exists, then God must exist" tends to be with intent of supporting your God concept.
Would you agree with the opposing concept that God, if not existing, is not a necessary being?
And if religious views of God were totally eliminated, would it make any difference if God did or did not exist?

 

[Grand Mal]

Because it is not real. Just like any other imaginary thing.

You just made Voltaire snort and turn away.

 

[Manc Skipper]

If gods could be proven to exist then faith would be redundant.

 

[Angel]

Yet there is no agreed upon definition of God with a capital G. There is no single "commitment" to any particular meaning for that word. Both human history and human created philosophy bear that out. That is because it is make believe. Valid forms of logic do not make the premises true, they only make the argument logically valid. Arguments are not a source of what it real.

As usual, devildavid drops into a thread he has not read or followed and starts shooting from the hip on matters out of his depth. Your bait is stale, sport.

 

[Angel]

If gods could be proven to exist then faith would be redundant.

You presumably have a partner in life, or an old friend, or offspring that has been proved to your satisfaction to exist, yes? Is your faith in that person redundant?

 

[Individual]

Possibility (can) and Necessity (must) are two distinct modal categories. Possibility attaches to contingent being -- being that came into existence and goes out of existence and might not have existed in the first place. This does not fit the concept of God. God, if existing, is a necessary being -- being that did not come into existence or go out of existence and could not not-have-existed.

Your "Proof" begins with a belief in an unproven/unprovable human created concept of a God, therefore the claim of "If God exists, then God must exist" tends to be with intent of supporting your God concept.
Would you agree with the opposing concept that God, if not existing, is not a necessary being?
And if religious views of God were totally eliminated, would it make any difference if God did or did not exist?

 

[Angel]

Your "Proof" begins with a belief in an unproven/unprovable human created concept of a God, therefore the claim of "If God exists, then God must exist" tends to be with intent of supporting your God concept.
Would you agree with the opposing concept that God, if not existing, is not a necessary being?
And if religious views of God were totally eliminated, would it make any difference if God did or did not exist?

No, my proof begins with three model axioms.

 

[Angel]

Your "Proof" begins with a belief in an unproven/unprovable human created concept of a God, therefore the claim of "If God exists, then God must exist" tends to be with intent of supporting your God concept.
Would you agree with the opposing concept that God, if not existing, is not a necessary being?
And if religious views of God were totally eliminated, would it make any difference if God did or did not exist?

No, my proof begins with three model axioms.

Oy! Timed out from editing yet another typo!
In this case "model" was meant to be "modal" -- apologies.

 

[Individual]

Oy! Timed out from editing yet another typo!
In this case "model" was meant to be "modal" -- apologies.

What can you claim "must" exist? Quarks, perhaps?

 

[Daisy]

You presumably have a partner in life, or an old friend, or offspring that has been proved to your satisfaction to exist, yes? Is your faith in that person redundant?

Good point, Angel...atheists assume faith is blind...it is not...it comes from getting to know God through His Word, through prayer, as well as through His creation...from that knowledge and intimacy, faith is built...

 

[Drowning Man]

Good point, Angel...atheists assume faith is blind...it is not...it comes from getting to know God through His Word, through prayer, as well as through His creation...from that knowledge and intimacy, faith is built...

Faith, by definition, is blind. If it isn't, then it's not faith. If you claim personal revelation of a God or set of gods, who am I to question your experience. I will not necessarily believe it to be true because to me it is hearsay, but I can't dispute that experience. On the other hand, if you actually had a personal revelation, it wouldn't be faith, but knowledge of a God or set of gods' existence.

Faith means that you have no reason to believe something...or even have contrary evidence, and believe it anyway. That's not necessarily a bad thing...it is what it is.

Reading Decartes, we have little knowledge of the universe other than that we know we exist (I think therefore I am) and some logical or mathematical truths. There must be a base amount of faith to believe that we aren't in a dream, that we don't have our brain in a jar like Spock in that one Star Trek episode, etc.

Where you and I differ is that I try to rely on faith as little as possible. But either way, recognize faith for what it is.

 

[Daisy]

Faith, by definition, is blind. If it isn't, then it's not faith. If you claim personal revelation of a God or set of gods, who am I to question your experience. I will not necessarily believe it to be true because to me it is hearsay, but I can't dispute that experience. On the other hand, if you actually had a personal revelation, it wouldn't be faith, but knowledge of a God or set of gods' existence.

Faith means that you have no reason to believe something...or even have contrary evidence, and believe it anyway. That's not necessarily a bad thing...it is what it is.

Reading Decartes, we have little knowledge of the universe other than that we know we exist (I think therefore I am) and some logical or mathematical truths. There must be a base amount of faith to believe that we aren't in a dream, that we don't have our brain in a jar like Spock in that one Star Trek episode, etc.

Where you and I differ is that I try to rely on faith as little as possible. But either way, recognize faith for what it is.

Wrong...the Bible's definition of faith...

"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." Hebrews 11:1

And pay special attention to verse 2..."For by means of it, the men of ancient times had witness borne to them."

BTW, science fiction does not interest me in the least so save it for someone else...

 

[Drowning Man]

Wrong...the Bible's definition of faith...

"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." Hebrews 11:1

And pay special attention to verse 2..."For by means of it, the men of ancient times had witness borne to them."

BTW, science fiction does not interest me in the least so save it for someone else...

So, tell me, what is the functional difference between the definitions that you posted there, an my definition of, "belief despite lack of or contrary evidence"?

And gotcha. No Star Trek.





May the force be with you...