Page 6 of 6
Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:38 pm
by Dubious
Because when something never existed there are no means available or necessary to "prove" it never existed. It doesn't get more complicated than that.
Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:58 am
by Veritas Aequitas
- Argument P:
P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P2. Something exists.
----
Therefore, 3. God exists.
Here is another perspective to why P1 is not valid and unsound.
The above "P1. Either nothing exists or God exists" is begging the question.
Rightly P1 should be;
Per Non Excluded Middle, i.e. either p or -p
- Either nothing exists or things exist.
Something exists
Therefore things exists
Another point is;
"Nothing exists" is an oxymoron.
Re Wittgenstein.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Where we can speak of 'nothing' as existing, then it must be a thing.
Any other alternative to non-existence meant one must be silent.
Point is "exist" or existence always implies a thing* in existence.
* not necessary must be a physical object, even a thought is a 'thing'.
Thus P1 is not valid.