On Proving God

Post Reply New Topic

To see is to know. You just have to know what you're looking for and not be veiled by the illusion that is life.

Trying to prove a personal Gd exists is inexcusable and vain.

In any case,you deny antecendent.

I used !P since you said ""If you don't pay me immediately"

Which is negation of pay,thats why I have written !P
But nevertheless,it irrelevant since even if you consider that as P,you then negate it with not P.
But let it be your way

You have P---->Q and you have not P (!P)

And you draw conclusion not Q (!Q)

This is logical fallacy "Denying the antecedent":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent




"If" and "If and only If" are not same thing,since "if" implies second from first,while equivalence means that both first and second are the same in logical sense.


On contrary "If and only If" is used in mathematics and logic(formal languages),in formulation of axioms,not in natural language.
"IFF" simply means that two statements have identical meaning.

You have mentioned threats,this is example:
"I will kill you iff you are threat to me."
This means :"If you are threat to me then i will kill you and If I will kill you then you are threat to me".

This makes absolutely no sense.

You cannot draw any conclusion from equivalence.Its just show that both statements require each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if









You cannot say that,since its logical fallacy "Denying the antecedent".



You cannot say "iff P then Q" its total logical rubbish.
"Iff" can be used BETWEEN two statements,not before statement.

You can only say P iff Q.

"Gromit is illogical if and only if Gromit does not understand logic"



If you say that,then it implies that threat is same thing as going to jail,and going to jail is same as threat.And this really have no sense.Since this is what "IF and only If" means.



Translation of natural sentence depends of how it was REALLY formulated,not what you believe.
And that example illustrate your total lack of knowledge logical laws.



Your formulation:"If (and only if) I thought it were possible to prove the existence of God, I would appreciate seeing that proof"...Is one gigantic logical fallacy.

You cannot use "IF and only IF" at the beginning of sentence,and when you used word "Existence of God" which is not propositional statement,but creates existential quantifier and thus belong to predicate logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification

When you have existential statement,then you cannot use implication or equivalence,but conjunction or disjunction.

But even if we accept your flawed construction,then it would mean that possibility of proving existence God is same as existence of God and because of that you would appreciate to see that proof.

'Ragtime' would probably agree with such formulation with great pleasure.



Again,how can you know that they are invalid,is this your own opinion or something else?

By showing your formulations of flawed and invalid arguments,then is doubtful that you can have right to claim that something is invalid.





Why don't you apply this same skepticism on other things as well,not just religion and politics?
Selective skepticism is not a skepticism.



But this is not how it was formulated by Anselm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument







Its say nothing about perfection,you have created 'straw man' out of ontological argument,and then deny your own interpretation of it.






If there is just goodness and justice in the world,then they would not be able to exist.Since goodness can only be goodness in relationship with something OPPOSITE (evil).
Good must exist,only if evil Exist.Same goes with justice.




Anselm argument is not about perfection,so I don't see point of your conclusion.




Again(like you) he attacks not Ontological argument,but his own 'straw man'.His arguments are not A PRIORI,but A POSTERIORI (from creation).While Ontological is about idea of God(A priori).



As mathematician Kurt Goedel demonstrated,Ontological argument is non-paradoxical,and properly logically formulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... ical_proof

Last edited by Witt on 07 Jan 2008, 9:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. "

Where have they pulled that from? How does that work? Who decides on how impressive the achievement is? And this is still placing a human context on something we ourselves have defined as undefinable, its just ridiculous! I will prove something doesn't exist by believing it is something and not another!

Yes, these are arguments that have been around for millennia.

Maimonodes had similar arguments: How can you define something that is indescribable? It is something that relates to a person, it cannot be described outside the context of that experiencer.

Let us not forget Vedic society.


"We" like to believe that it was the Enlightenment era that brought about such thinking forgetting or brushing off the idea that such thoughts have already been thought of.

This is the first place I can actually calmly discuss topics like this though, it really is a wonderful thing, most people I speak to are terrified by such a subject.

There is nothing new under the sun...

Its all dynamics.

And I see no connection to the point I was trying to make. If you want to clear it up, send me a pm. Or make a separate thread if you want an audience. I am sure anyone interested in seeing this debate, will follow us to a new thread.


I didn't say skepticism should not be applied in other situations. My two reasons for restricting my statement were: I was trying to get back to something related to this thread. And people rarely seriously harm each other over whether custard or ice cream is the better dessert, so excessive certainty is less of a problem, and an appropriate level of skepticism is less important.

I have given this some more thought, and I now think that I have to be more restrictive. I think absolute certainty over the existence or non-existence of a deity (or deities) is rarely a problem. That comes with more specific beliefs. Even people who agree on the existence of the same God may kill each other over how that God should be worshiped.


If you tell me what, in this context, the relevant difference between greatness and perfection is, I can see whether my ideas about the logical inconsistency of perfection as applied to God are wrong, or perhaps merely not relevant to Anselm's argument.


That argument is new to me. In this context, it may have an interesting implication. In a theology in which Satan is assumed to be the source of all evil, would your argument mean that God could only be good for as long as Satan exists? And if God was the first to exist, was he not good then? If good did not exist in the absence of evil, how did both come to exist?


As far as I can tell, Gasking used the same link as Anselm between being greater and existence. If that is not the flaw in the argument, can you tell me what is?

Then I would covert to Christianity because then I would have actual proof.

I'm not anti-religious, I'm completely open to belief in God if his existence proven to me, but it can't be. And until there is any proof (not mere of the Bible's truth but of a God), I will remain a scientific agnostic. If a God is cruel enough to send me to Hell for coming to a rational scientific conclusion using the logic and intelligence that he gave me, then Heaven is a place I wouldn't want to be.

Last edited by Phagocyte on 09 Jan 2008, 12:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

A comedian's story about watching the handicapped Olympics illustrates the point. As the camera slowly panned across the starting line up for the women amputees' sprint, he first saw a woman who had lost one leg, another who had lost one leg, another who had lost two legs, then one who had lost an arm. Who would impress you most if she won the race?

Putting it in more general terms, the question is how far the achievement exceeds expectations. The greater the handicap, the less you expect, and the more impressed you will be by the same achievement.

Urgh. I keep trying to post to God topics, but I always become so furious and inarticulate. To even speak of the concept with proper coherence is an art.

Anyway, let us say that the legless woman wins the race; this might be impressive from the woman's own point of view, but the brilliance of what she had accomplished would be theoretically equal to that attainable by any of the other contestants.

One might be an artist trying to paint a picture. The impression achieved by the painting depends more on how it compares to similar attempts by members of the same society than it does on the painter's physical condition. That's why adults don't buy the art of children for thousands of units of currency, unless the child manages to paint a picture whose quality rivals that of a matured master.

So I think the thing about the impressiveness of achievements is only even theoretically feasible in the sense of creative deities if you're thinking in terms of a deitic community, in which case one is probably drawn to question who created that very community because of its similarity to the creative powers that humans exhibit in this reality. In response to this new question, I would suggest that you were on the wrong track from the start.

I was thinking last night about the human brain and AI, as often I do, and it occured to me that you probably can't push AI or the abilities of computer hardware to the point of human ability unless you complement the traditional logical, binary computer with a seperate, creative machine that is not based on logic, and as such is able to deal with abstract concepts and deal with numbers like 3.3333333 (continuing into infinity) without any problems whatsoever, which I believe is an issue with advanced physics engines.
Anyway, I would consider similarly that trying to concieve of the ultimacy of all is not a job for the logical mind alone, and cannot be "worked out" simply by crunching logics together in a forum, or even nearly so. For this reason, God topics are, in my view, ultimately futile, albeit incredibly fun for some reason.

So there. No idea what this has to do with anything.

Edit: *finally gets around to reading the initial post*
Ah! I guess I agree with the original poster then.

1. Well, for clarification, may I ask whether you believe God is totally real? As in, not just "in your heart". Not just "He's real to me if I believe in Him."
2. Do you think He's as real as you and I?
3. Do you think He's as real as science?

Or do you believe that God is more a concept, than an actual, literal being? No offense, but please, please don't be vague in your answer, as these are questions asked to specifically ascertain what you believe about God.

4a. For instance, is He more real when we believe in Him?
4b. Does He fade out of existence when we don't believe in Him?
5. Is God part of "your reality", existing there but not existing in "other people's realities"?

I don't see how one concept can be more real than another, whether it be a concept of one's own concrete experience or the concept of anything else. I also don't see how anything can not be real. Perhaps I have a different idea of what "real" means, then. Meh.

Heh , this is the Politics, Philosophy, and Religion section. We ALL have different ideas about what "real" is!

I personally think that, on a scale of 0 to infinity, God ranks infinity, and we rank somewhat lower. Not a lot lower, just a little.
Compared to Him, we don't exist. That's just my personal view. So, if someone asks me "Who exists, you or God???" and forces me to answer either one or the other, I'll say "God exists, not me." We're just kind of God's dreams.

Last edited by Ragtime on 09 Jan 2008, 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You have stated before:



Although your own formulation of sentence with "iff" is fundamentally flawed,I have presented example of threat that have "IFF" bi-conditional,to show that this (and any ) threat with "IFF" does make no sense at all.



Why would I do that Gromit?

You clearly wanted an audience in this thread,when you started to debate with me,since this is public discussion.
I simply answer to your claims,that you presented against my claims in this thread.
Now you want me to send you a pm.
If you wanted private discussion,you would send me pm before you started to debate with me.
I have nothing to hide...what about you?



But this is not discussion about specific beliefs,this is discussion about God in general.

God is separate thing from religions.

This topic is about 'Proving God',not 'Proving Christian or Muslim God'.

People have killed each other in the name of science and progress as well.Does this mean that because of that ideas of science and progress are problem?



Your own personal interpretations are irrelevant on this subject.

Its important how Anselm's argument was REALLY formulated,and what words he used.
He used word based on greatness,not perfection.If he meant perfection he would used that word.
We can analyze only that which was written,not what we think that should be written.



Since this is discussion about existence of God as such,not about existence of Biblical God,then I don't see why you must use idea of Satan?
You have mentioned suffering,and I just said that existence of suffering is necessary,if we want something opposite to exist (bliss or similar concept).



They obviously must came to be at once.Since state before evil is not goodness,but state beyond good and evil.
But then again,I believe that you mostly have some Biblical concept in mind (genesis or something),which I don't think is relevant to discussion about God in general.



As I already said,Gasking argument is based on creation,and from creation he induced notion of creator.This is clearly a posteriori way of thinking,and a posteriori way of thinking does not give necessary answers.

In ontological argument God is not mentioned as creator,his existence has been deduced from his own idea (a priori),because this idea necessary implies real existence(probably the only idea of this kind).Deduction gives necessary answers.




So,you're not really 'open' at all.

You want proof,but then again you said God cannot be proven.

"God cannot be proven,yet I want proofs,because I'm open to belief in God."




Why do you equate God as such,with Biblical God?

Exactly. I'm open in the moral sense that I'm not religious and wouldn't find a way to rationalize it (like fundamentalists with fossil evidence). But, God cannot be proven, because, in definition, he exists outside the realm of science and human reason. My point was that it is a fallacy, as I think it's impossible to prove god, and I do not believe things without proof.



I don't, though the person I was quoting seems to do so.