If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:18 pm

from Patrick J. Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic,

i] "...(A) valid deductive argument is an argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true"
ii] "A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises".


from George I. Mavrodes' Belief in God: A Study in the Epistemology of Religion

Argument P:

P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P2. Something exists.
----
Therefore, 3. God exists.

iii] Suggestion/proposal/claim: a sound argument for "God exists" is a proof for "God exists"

iv] Claim: Argument P is a sound argument for "God exists":

v] Argument P is a proof that God exists.

Question: If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?

Logik
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:37 pm

Proof by contradiction requires a sane counter-factual.

P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P1. (A) Either nothing exists or Unicorns exist.
P1. (B) Either nothing exists or cats can fly

Obviously A and B ridiculous.
The sane counter-factual is P2 itself. Either nothing exists or something exists.

If that which exists is what you call God then you have conceptualised The Universe. e.g this is the Pantheistic argument.

Other names for this are Anselm's ontological argument, or a more modern alternative is Gödel's ontological proof.

Walker
Posts: 6308
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Walker » Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:38 pm

Because the trees obscure the forest.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:36 am

Argument P:
  • P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
    P2. Something exists.
    ----
    Therefore, 3. God exists.


P1 is a form of the fallacy of petitio principii, i.e. begging the question.
"God exists" is assumed to be true in P1.
God exists need to be proven before it can be incorporated in P1.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.
In addition P1 is very unsound as highlighted by Logik above.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3185
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by attofishpi » Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:33 am

Hugh Nose wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:18 pm
If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?
Because God\'God' does not want to be proven to exist...the reason :- entropy

1. God is divine, formed its own intelligence and our reality from the chaos of the early universe.
2. 'God' as an intelligence was created by intelligence species, perhaps us, created in order for us to exist within a far more efficient reality. A.I.

With either, entropy is key.

Point 2:-
Intelligent species require ever increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle.
Eventually as entropy increases, useful resources diminish, requiring said intelligence's to exist far more efficiently.
It is likely they would prefer to exist within a reality that they are accustomed to, hence an Artificial Intelligence would project reality to the consciousness's of individuals once interfaced to the system.
Their material bodies would be an illusion, and no longer requiring to draw energy from the original system.

This A.I. 'God' would have set rules, as to those born into the system, rules that govern whether they get the right to reincarnate or not.
Perhaps 10 commandments.
Those within the system would be left in GREAT DOUBT, as to its existence, since energy should only be provided, to those of higher moral fibre, indeed, a self realised higher moral fibre...those that are indeed WISE.

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:58 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:37 pm
Proof by contradiction requires a sane counter-factual.

P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P1. (A) Either nothing exists or Unicorns exist.
P1. (B) Either nothing exists or cats can fly

Obviously A and B ridiculous.
The sane counter-factual is P2 itself. Either nothing exists or something exists.

If that which exists is what you call God then you have conceptualised The Universe. e.g this is the Pantheistic argument.

Other names for this are Anselm's ontological argument, or a more modern alternative is Gödel's ontological proof.
If by "proof by contradiction you mean reduction ad absurdum", this argument is not an instance of a reductio ad absurdum argument. It is a simple disjunctive syllogism. Check any basic logic text.

P2 is not a counterfactual.

The argument is not remotely like Anselm's ontological argument or anyone else's ontological argument.

cheers,

Hugh

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:36 am
Argument P:
  • P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
    P2. Something exists.
    ----
    Therefore, 3. God exists.


P1 is a form of the fallacy of petitio principii, i.e. begging the question.
"God exists" is assumed to be true in P1.
God exists need to be proven before it can be incorporated in P1.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.
In addition P1 is very unsound as highlighted by Logik above.
The argument is not an instance of petitio principii. In order for it to be a petitio, the proposition that "God exists" would have to be one of the premises, which it is not, or "God exists" would have to be logically entailed by one of the premises, which it is not. "God does not exist" is consistent with "Either nothing exists or God exists" and it is consistent with "Something exists". You too should check any basic logic text.

I don't think I would rely on Logik, if I were you.

cheers,

Hugh

Logik
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:19 am

Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:58 am
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:37 pm
Proof by contradiction requires a sane counter-factual.

P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P1. (A) Either nothing exists or Unicorns exist.
P1. (B) Either nothing exists or cats can fly

Obviously A and B ridiculous.
The sane counter-factual is P2 itself. Either nothing exists or something exists.

If that which exists is what you call God then you have conceptualised The Universe. e.g this is the Pantheistic argument.

Other names for this are Anselm's ontological argument, or a more modern alternative is Gödel's ontological proof.
If by "proof by contradiction you mean reduction ad absurdum", this argument is not an instance of a reductio ad absurdum argument. It is a simple disjunctive syllogism. Check any basic logic text.

P2 is not a counterfactual.

The argument is not remotely like Anselm's ontological argument or anyone else's ontological argument.

cheers,

Hugh
I don’t mean reductio ad absurdum.
I mean proof by contradiction.

When you graduate out of primary school where they teach classical logic you will learn why classical logic is broken.

You failed to justify your chosen disjunction given the equally valid alternatives I presented you with, and you failed to recognise that given your approach you can prove anything.

Your argument is not of the same form at the ontological argument. Your conclusion is identical.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:39 am

Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:36 am
Argument P:
  • P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
    P2. Something exists.
    ----
    Therefore, 3. God exists.


P1 is a form of the fallacy of petitio principii, i.e. begging the question.
"God exists" is assumed to be true in P1.
God exists need to be proven before it can be incorporated in P1.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.
In addition P1 is very unsound as highlighted by Logik above.
The argument is not an instance of petitio principii. In order for it to be a petitio, the proposition that "God exists" would have to be one of the premises, which it is not, or "God exists" would have to be logically entailed by one of the premises, which it is not. "God does not exist" is consistent with "Either nothing exists or God exists" and it is consistent with "Something exists". You too should check any basic logic text.

I don't think I would rely on Logik, if I were you.

cheers,

Hugh
I stated is a form [subset] of petitio principii.
In P1 you had assumed 'God exists' is possible.
My counter is 'God is an impossibility to be real.'
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Thus at least you have to prove God is even a possibility to to be real in the first place.

I agree with Logik in that specific case.
Your general theme re P1 is;
If nothing exists, then God exists
If nothing exists, then there is no God because God had created things.
Your P1 is not rational, thus why not another irrational statement,
If nothing exists, then Unicorn-A exists.

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:50 am

Calm down!

I don’t mean reductio ad absurdum.
I mean proof by contradiction.


Then explain what "proof by contradiction" means, please.

When you graduate out of primary school where they teach classical logic you will learn why classical logic is broken.

There is no need to be rude. Please explain what you mean when you say that classical logic is broken! Whatever you mean by "classical logic is broken", what does it have to do with the disjunctive syllogism that was offered in the beinning post?

You failed to justify your chosen disjunction given the equally valid alternatives I presented you with, and you failed to recognise that given your approach you can prove anything.

This is irrelevant with respect to the opening post. Argument P was offered as a sound argument for the existence of God. It is not part of the definition of "sound argument" that the argument be valid and the premises all be true AND that all of the premises be proved. That is, it is not part of any definition of "sound" found in any intro logic text or in any intro to philosophy text.

What I have said does not entail that you can prove anything. You cannot produce sound arguments for conclusions that contradict one another. That is, one cannot provide a sound argument for "God exists" and a sound argument for "God does not exist". One cannot produce a sound argument for anything that is not true.

Your argument is not of the same form at the ontological argument. Your conclusion is identical.

I don't know what this is suppose to mean/show, or what it has to do with your original reference to ontological arguments. The 'conclusion' of argument P is identical with the conclusion of ontological arguments for the existence of God, it is identical with the conclusion of cosmological arguments for the existence of God, it is identical with teleological arguments for the existence of God, and so on...

Once again, there is no need to be rude.

cheers,

Hugh

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:39 am
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:36 am
[/list]

P1 is a form of the fallacy of petitio principii, i.e. begging the question.
"God exists" is assumed to be true in P1.
God exists need to be proven before it can be incorporated in P1.



In addition P1 is very unsound as highlighted by Logik above.
The argument is not an instance of petitio principii. In order for it to be a petitio, the proposition that "God exists" would have to be one of the premises, which it is not, or "God exists" would have to be logically entailed by one of the premises, which it is not. "God does not exist" is consistent with "Either nothing exists or God exists" and it is consistent with "Something exists". You too should check any basic logic text.

I don't think I would rely on Logik, if I were you.

cheers,

Hugh
I stated is a form [subset] of petitio principii.
In P1 you had assumed 'God exists' is possible.
My counter is 'God is an impossibility to be real.'
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Thus at least you have to prove God is even a possibility to to be real in the first place.
Clearly if some notion of “absolute perfection” is incoherent, then there can’t be something that has this “property”. But, whatever you think you have proved in the thread you referred to, it has nothing to do with argument P. All you would show by showing that “absolute perfection” is incoherent is that God does not have the property referred to by “absolute perfection”; you would not show that the God of, say, St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t/can't exist.


I agree with Logik in that specific case.
Your general theme re P1 is;
If nothing exists, then God exists
If nothing exists, then there is no God because God had created things.
Your P1 is not rational, thus why not another irrational statement,
If nothing exists, then Unicorn-A exists.
P1 is not “If nothing exists, then God exists”. P1 is “Either nothing exists or God exists”. The two are not equivalent. Maybe you should try to make your point again using the correct P1.

Cheers,

Hugh

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1478
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:28 pm

Hugh Nose wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:18 pm
Argument P:

P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P2. Something exists.
----
Therefore, 3. God exists.

iii] Suggestion/proposal/claim: a sound argument for "God exists" is a proof for "God exists"

iv] Claim: Argument P is a sound argument for "God exists":

v] Argument P is a proof that God exists.

Question: If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?
P1. as stated is a false dichotomy. As Logik already pointed out, either nothing exists or something exists. Stating it as "Either nothing exists or God exists" begs the question by way of a smuggled assumption that there can be no existence without God.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:00 am

VA wrote:My counter is 'God is an impossibility to be real.'
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
Thus at least you have to prove God is even a possibility to to be real in the first place.
Hugh Nose wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:38 pm
Clearly if some notion of “absolute perfection” is incoherent, then there can’t be something that has this “property”.
But, whatever you think you have proved in the thread you referred to, it has nothing to do with argument P.
All you would show by showing that “absolute perfection” is incoherent is that God does not have the property referred to by “absolute perfection”; you would not show that the God of, say, St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t/can't exist.
Note the Ontological God of St. Anselm [Aquinas?] implied "absolute perfection" i.e. a God than which no greater perfection* can exists. Perfection as a property of the supreme God is emphasized in Descartes' ontological God.
* we can include absolute, completeness, total, and the likes.
To attach 'absolute' to 'perfection' is an additional reinforcement.

Since "absolute perfection" is an impossibility to be real, God cannot exists as real.

If God cannot exists as real, your P1 is false [as assumed], thus P is false.


Our brain/mind can generate all sorts of thoughts that do not necessary exist as possible to be real, e.g. a square-circle, God, independent soul, perfection, etc. Such thoughts even when cannot be real can have positive effects on the brain, mind and body, e.g. psychosomatic, and the likes.

The thought [pure and never rational] of a God is a critical necessity for the majority to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis embedded deep in the brain/mind.
This is why God is by default believed based heavily on faith [>90%] to soothe the existential crisis. Whether God is real or not is secondary.

Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Hugh Nose » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:51 pm

You are spinning your wheels here. Interpreting one or more of the various properties that are attributed to God [an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being] in ways that are incoherent does not show that there is no being, God. All it shows is that the being, God, does not have the incoherent ‘property’. I am surprised that you cannot see this. Misguided attempts such as this are taken up in any decent Introduction to Philosophy textbook.

Consider the following argument.

A1. If my grandmother is in the living room, then there is a person in the living room with a head that it is sphere-shaped and cube-shaped.
A2. My grandmother is in the living room.
therefore,
A3. There is a person in the living room with a head that is sphere-shaped and cube-shaped..

Pointing out that there cannot be a head that is sphere-shaped and cube-shaped, even if true, does nothing to show that my grandmother is not in the living room. It shows at most that my grandmother doesn’t have a sphere-shaped, cube-shaped head.

There have been attempts to show that there is no God by attempting to show that there is an incoherence in the existence of an all-knowing being and free-will for human beings [where free-will in humans is an essential aspect of human beings according to the proponents of the existence of God in the context]. The most that this approach can show, by itself, is that there is an inconsistency in the existence of this God’s notion of free-will and a particular understanding of “all-knowing”. It does not show that God does not exist. A perfectly rational way of responding is to acknowledge the inconsistency, if there is an inconsistency, as showing that the notion of “all-knowing’ that had been part of the understanding must to be revised. The believer in this context still has her God along with a better understanding of the nature of her God.

Your proof of the non-existence of God that appeals to the impossibility of “absolute perfection” [understood in the way that you choose to present it] does not show that the first premise of argument P is false, because your notion of “absolute perfection” has nothing to do with the God of argument P.

Whether or not your “proof” has anything to do with one of the God proofs in Descartes’ 5th “Meditation”, or Anselm’s Ontological proof is a different argument. Even if it is assumed that the arguments of Descartes [the one in the 5th, not the one in the 3rd “Meditation”] and the argument of Anselm are impacted by your critique [I do not think they are, but that is not important here] the “first cause” arguments of Aquinas, for example, are not.

Let me emphasize that the points above have nothing to do with the substance of your claims about “absolute perfection”. Rather the points are about the basic logical structure of your argument, which structure is reflected in other discussion in philosophy, discussions where the mistake you are making is not made. I am curious, have you ever taken a basic college introduction to philosophy course, or even read a decent Introduction to Philosophy textbook?

Cheers,

Hugh

Logik
Posts: 3917
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: If the existence of God cannot be proved, why not?

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:50 pm

Hugh Nose wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:51 pm
You are spinning your wheels here. Interpreting one or more of the various properties that are attributed to God [an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being] in ways that are incoherent does not show that there is no being, God. All it shows is that the being, God, does not have the incoherent ‘property’. I am surprised that you cannot see this.
We see it quite clearly.

You don't seem to draw distinction between extensional and intensional definitions.
You don't seem to draw distinction between positive and negative properties.
You don't seem to draw distinction between inclusionary and exclusionary criteria.

What you have attempted-but-failed is a genus-difference definition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus%E2% ... definition ) where you have claimed that God is a being.

Which is fine, but you haven't:
1. Defined the exclusionary criteria for "being"
* Is a rock a being?
* Is an amoeba a being?
2. Once you define the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for beings you have defined the genus "being". Then you need to explain how "God" is different.

Your claim for "God" is merely one of existence. It could be literally any object in The Universe - big or small.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests