## 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

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:30 pm
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:26 am The logical form of "Either nothing exists or God exists." is A ⊻ B ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or )

The truth table for XOR is as follows:

A | B | A⊻B
0 ⊻ 0 ⇒ 0
1 ⊻ 0 ⇒ 1
0 ⊻ 1 ⇒ 1
1 ⊻ 1 ⇒ 0

You insist (a priori) that A⊻B is true so you are discarding two possibilities (50% of the decision-space) without justifying why:
0⊻0 ⇒ 0 (Nothing exists and God doesn't exist)
1⊻1 ⇒ 0 (Something exists and God exists)

By inexplicably discarding the other possibilities you have left us with:

A | B | A⊻B
1 ⊻ 0 ⇒ 1
0 ⊻ 1 ⇒ 1

This, in turn can be reduced to A ⇔ ¬B which is the same form as A ⇔ ¬A. The law of excluded middle.

It's a truism.
You really should take another look at some of the things you have said here. Some are just plain false!

...
Just for the record, the logical form of "Either nothing exists or God exists" in argument P is not properly understood as an exclusive "or" proposition. Throughout this entire thread it has been an inclusive "or". This was evident in the excerpt from the logic text that I included. It was also evident when, in one message I suggested that one could, for purposes there, understand the disjunctive statement is terms of its materially equivalent material implication,-- "If something exists, then God exists".
Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

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

Logik wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:41 pm
Hugh Nose wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:40 pm Only because I was using ∧ in the way that I thought you were using it, as "or", and that was my error. Nevertheless, if we use the "and" understanding for ∧, it is still the case that,
I inverted them. Intentionally to see how far your nitpicking goes.

See my last post. The previous post was a test (you failed).
This appears to be a simple, straight-forward, intentional falsehood. While I don't mind [too much] trying to contend with your abuse/ignorance of logic, I will not attempt to contend with your dishonesty.

I will not respond to any further posts from you in this thread!

Hugh

[edited to correct my name]
Last edited by Hugh Nose on Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:38 am I don't know what to make of your comment about Higher-order logic. Nothing that you have mentioned draws on anything from higher order logics-- no appeal to higher order logics saves any of your false statements.
In the days of Hammurabi, falsely accusing somebody of a crime carried the same penalty as if you had committed the crime yourself.

You accuse me of falsity, but I am happy to demonstrate that you are the guilty party. Alas, it's 2019 and we are civilised - we we will let you keep your head on.

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:38 am If I understand this properly, it is further demonstration that when it comes to logic, you don't know what you are doing.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:38 am The replacement of "A" in A v -A with ¬B is not a truth preserving replacement.
"Truth-preserving repacement" in deductive reasoning is another way of saying "confirmation bias".
You are not meant to preserve the truth you are meant to deduce it!

If B ⇒ ⊥, then ¬B ⇒ ⊤
If A ⇒ ⊤ and ¬B ⇒ ⊤, then substituting A for ¬B is perfectly valid substitution.

Truth is Truth! 1 = 1!

Which is precisely the implication of A ⇔ ¬B (duh!)
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:38 am SO, the claim that ¬B v -A is true as a result of such a replacement is just false. A simple truth table analysis will show that this 'inference' is invalid.

But don't let me convince you of that. Go ahead and produce a truth-table.
The more you speak - the more evidence of your ignorance you provide.

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:38 am There is no instance of double negation in the proposition [as the term "double negation" is used in propositional logic in college level intro to logic texts]. In a formula such as ¬¬B v ¬A, ¬¬B is an instance of double negation.
I have provided the truth-tables above. Re-read them and correct yourself.

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:38 am I don't know what to make of your comment about Higher-order logic. Nothing that you have mentioned draws on anything from higher order logics-- no appeal to higher order logics saves any of your false statements.
Is that so? Just in the paragraph above you spoke of double-negation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-ne ... ranslation
In proof theory, a discipline within mathematical logic, double-negation translation, sometimes called negative translation, is a general approach for embedding classical logic into intuitionistic logic, typically by translating formulas to formulas which are classically equivalent but intuitionistically inequivalent. Particular instances of double-negation translation include Glivenko's translation for propositional logic, and the Gödel–Gentzen translation and Kuroda's translation for first-order logic.
So it seems to me that classical and intuitionistic logic have a deep incompatibility, huh? So much for "truth-preserving"....

So here are two propositions:

Assume B ⇒ ⊤

Then in classical logic: B ∧ ¬¬B => ⊤
But in intuitionistic logic: B ∧ ¬¬B is non-deterministic.

In this intricacy also lies intuitionistic logic's rejection of LEM.

So is double-negation valid or invalid in logic?
Is LEM valid or invalid?

Well, it depends on whether you CHOOSE classical or intuitionistic logic!

The notion that you are free to choose your favourite logic should upset you deeply!

I come from a background of constructive mathematics and computer science. I eat classical logicians for breakfast. Your false accusations shall not be tolerated here.

For logic is the expert-domain of Computer Science and Mathemaics - not philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence
Last edited by Logik on Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:31 am, edited 11 times in total.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:01 am This appears to be a simple, straight-forward, intentional falsehood. While I don't mind [too much] trying to contend with your abuse/ignorance of logic, I will not attempt to contend with your dishonesty.

I will not respond to any further posts from you in this thread!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You accuse me of dishonesty and falsehood then walk away. In the days of Hammurabi I would've had you beheaded for tarnishing my honour!

But, because you have only studied logic in an academic setting (and because we tolerate ignorance in this modern day and age) you are forgiven and your life shall be spared.

While we forgive ignorance - we do not forgive the harmful consequences of your ignorant actions.
In 2019 slander is still a crime.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:21 am
Atla wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:13 pm But what if my monitor exists, but God doesn't? So P1 is false.
That is a good point.
Thus,
• P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P2. Something is proven to exists but there is no proofs God exists
Therefore, 3. God does not exist.
It would be simpler,
• Whatever exists must be proven and justified.
there is no proofs God exists
Therefore God does not exist.
Gobbledegook!

Cheers,

Hugh
Soo, what if P1 is false? I can see the monitor but I haven't seen this God fellow so far, maybe he exists maybe not, where is the proof?
Hugh Nose
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:28 am

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

Atla wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:02 pm
Hugh Nose wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:48 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:21 am

That is a good point.
Thus,
• P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P2. Something is proven to exists but there is no proofs God exists
Therefore, 3. God does not exist.
It would be simpler,
• Whatever exists must be proven and justified.
there is no proofs God exists
Therefore God does not exist.
Gobbledegook!

Cheers,

Hugh
Soo, what if P1 is false? I can see the monitor but I haven't seen this God fellow so far, maybe he exists maybe not, where is the proof?
If P1 is false, then Argument P is unsound, valid, but unsound.

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?

Age wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:19 am
Hugh Nose wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:57 am
Logik wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:24 am

Either Logik is a resident of New York, or Logik is a redisent of London.
Logik is not a resident of London.
Therefore Logik is a resident of New York.

The conclusion is false. How can I tell? Because I don't live in either of those cities. So..

The conclusion is false. How is that possible?
The explanation is that the premises are false.

Because I don't live in New York or London!
The first time you posted this message, you said that the argument was invalid. I assume you have backed away from that claim. Perhaps you went back and re-read the excerpt from IEP
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
The premise is a false dichotomy.
You can call it a false dichotomy if you like, but the mere fact that it is a disjunction that does not mention all of the possibilities is not what makes it false. What makes it false is the fact that you don't live in New York or London. The statement, "Either Hugh Nose lives in Delaware or Hugh Nose lives in Pennsylvania" is as much a false dichotomy as "Either Logik is a resident of New York, or Logik is a redisent of London", yet it is true- I do in fact live in Pennsylvania.

One of us does indeed need instruction and one of us does indeed need to read more carefully. The audience can decide who.

Cheers,

Hugh
I am glad that you brought this last sentence up. i, an audience participant, have decided that;
If you are going to say that what makes the premise Either Logik is a resident of New York, or Logik is a resident of London false, is the fact that logik is NOT a resident of either, then i will now ask you;

How is your premise Either nothing exists or God exists NOT false?

In fact are you even trying to suggest that that premise is true? Or, did you just write it for some other reason?

See, I can ask logik if they are a resident of either or none, and if I get an honest reply, then I will KNOW if the premise is true or false. However, how do you KNOW if the premise Either nothing exists or God exists is true or false?

Also, if we are to accept that your OWN logic of; "If I don't know whether or not eh first premise is true or false, then I don't know if the arguments are sound arguments or not." is correct, then to KNOW if God is proved, with an argument, then we would need to know if your premise Either nothing exists or God exists is true.

You asked, If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?
My response is, The reason argument P is NOT a proof that God exists, to me, is because I do NOT know if the premise; Either nothing exists or God exists is true, or false. Therefore, I do NOT know if argument P is a sound argument or not. If I do NOT know if an argument is sound or not, then I will NOT know if the argument is actually proving some thing or not.

Quite simple really.
If you know that the argument is valid, but you don’t know if premise 1 is true or not, then you don’t know that if the argument is sound or not, as you acknowledge. If you don’t know if the argument is proving something or not [you say you do not know], isn’t that the same thing as saying that you don’t know that the argument is a proof and you don’t know that it isn’t a proof? If attaching something such as “to me” is just another way of saying that you don’t know if the argument is a proof or not, this shows nothing about argument P. The question in the opening post of this thread is,

“If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?”

The fact that you don’t know if it is a proof or not, shows nothing about whether or not the conditions on soundness/proof have been satisfied.
And, as I am still on the same issue as I pointed out to you in my first response, to you, which you subsequently ignored, I will repeat it again; For YOUR argument to be a sound, valid argument you would have to first SHOW Who/What 'God' IS, AND, also prove that THAT/Thing HAS TO exist whenever something exists.
About your remark “For YOUR argument to be a sound, valid argument you would have to first SHOW Who/What 'God' IS, AND, also prove that THAT/Thing HAS TO exist whenever something exists.”, this remark seems inconsistent with what I take you to have implicitly acknowledged. For the argument to be a sound argument, nothing has to be shown about the premises, nothing has to be proved about the premises, you don’t have to be convinced that the premises are true—the premises just have to be true.

Of course, in order to show/prove/convince you that the argument is sound, the truth of one or more of the premises might have to be demonstrated to you. Before any attempt to show that premise 1 in argument P is true could be undertaken [any attempt that had a chance of being viewed as successful, that is], it would have clear as to what it takes to prove something so that we don’t get into this same [tangential] line of questioning if a proof of premise P is offered, a line of questioning such as “in your attempt to produce a sound argument that God exists, you have to prove that the first premise of that argument is true That is, a line of questioning that starts with nothing more than, “You have to prove that the proof of one of the premises in your first proof is true”, is to be stopped before it gets started.
Now are you suggesting/stating that your first premise is true?
If yes, then define what 'God' is, and then prove that that definition of 'God' must ALWAYS exist whenever something exists. Until you do that, then your argument P is NOT proof that God exists. For the reasons I have given here above, and in my first response to you here in this thread.
[my emphasis-- Hugh]

Can you see now that nothing you have said supports the claim that argument P is not a proof? Unless you change the conditions on sound argument/proof, at most you have made it clear that you don't know if it is a proof or not.

Cheers,

Hugh
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory
Proof theory is a major branch[1] of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects, facilitating their analysis by mathematical techniques. Proofs are typically presented as inductively-defined data structures such as plain lists, boxed lists, or trees, which are constructed according to the axioms and rules of inference of the logical system. As such, proof theory is syntactic in nature, in contrast to model theory, which is semantic in nature.

Some of the major areas of proof theory include structural proof theory, ordinal analysis, provability logic, reverse mathematics, proof mining, automated theorem proving, and proof complexity. Much research also focuses on applications in computer science, linguistics, and philosophy.
This argument is not a proof because it lacks a syntactic definition for the "God" object.
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:00 pm If P1 is false, then Argument P is unsound, valid, but unsound.

Cheers,

Hugh
I came up with another valid, but unsound Argument, I kinda like it:

P1. Either nothing exists or Hugh Nose owes Atla 1 million dollars.
P2. Something exists.
----
Therefore, 3. Hugh Nose owes Atla 1 million dollars.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Atla wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:43 pm ...Therefore, 3. Hugh Nose owes Atla 1 million dollars.
I tried that already.I proved he's from Mars, but then he says he is from Pennsylvania *shrug*...
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:45 pm P1. Either nothing exists, or Hugh Nose was born on Mars.
P2. Something exists.
C. Therefore, Hugh Nose was born on Mars.
Age
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:19 am
Hugh Nose wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:57 am

The first time you posted this message, you said that the argument was invalid. I assume you have backed away from that claim. Perhaps you went back and re-read the excerpt from IEP

You can call it a false dichotomy if you like, but the mere fact that it is a disjunction that does not mention all of the possibilities is not what makes it false. What makes it false is the fact that you don't live in New York or London. The statement, "Either Hugh Nose lives in Delaware or Hugh Nose lives in Pennsylvania" is as much a false dichotomy as "Either Logik is a resident of New York, or Logik is a redisent of London", yet it is true- I do in fact live in Pennsylvania.

One of us does indeed need instruction and one of us does indeed need to read more carefully. The audience can decide who.

Cheers,

Hugh
I am glad that you brought this last sentence up. i, an audience participant, have decided that;
If you are going to say that what makes the premise Either Logik is a resident of New York, or Logik is a resident of London false, is the fact that logik is NOT a resident of either, then i will now ask you;

How is your premise Either nothing exists or God exists NOT false?

In fact are you even trying to suggest that that premise is true? Or, did you just write it for some other reason?

See, I can ask logik if they are a resident of either or none, and if I get an honest reply, then I will KNOW if the premise is true or false. However, how do you KNOW if the premise Either nothing exists or God exists is true or false?

Also, if we are to accept that your OWN logic of; "If I don't know whether or not eh first premise is true or false, then I don't know if the arguments are sound arguments or not." is correct, then to KNOW if God is proved, with an argument, then we would need to know if your premise Either nothing exists or God exists is true.

You asked, If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?
My response is, The reason argument P is NOT a proof that God exists, to me, is because I do NOT know if the premise; Either nothing exists or God exists is true, or false. Therefore, I do NOT know if argument P is a sound argument or not. If I do NOT know if an argument is sound or not, then I will NOT know if the argument is actually proving some thing or not.

Quite simple really.
If you know that the argument is valid,
But I do NOT know if YOUR argument is even valid, let alone sound.

So far you have NOT shared a definition for what the word 'God' refers to. Although this has been clearly asked for.
If you do NOT clearly express what you are talking about to others, then what you are saying to them does NOT make sense.
Therefore, what you write is nonsensical and YOUR argument P is nothing more than nonsensical written words.

I have already expressed, 'Although the conclusion MIGHT be true', which to actually SHOW how it is true with a sound, valid argument is really very simple and easy indeed. However, YOUR argument P, in its current form, is NOT valid, NOR sound. Therefore, it is NOT proof of any thing.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm but you don’t know if premise 1 is true or not, then you don’t know that if the argument is sound or not, as you acknowledge.
As I have already explained, that is; IF we are to accept your OWN logic, then this is the outcome we arrive at.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm If you don’t know if the argument is proving something or not [you say you do not know], isn’t that the same thing as saying that you don’t know that the argument is a proof and you don’t know that it isn’t a proof?
And, I will NEVER know if it is proof or not UNTIL you provide YOUR definition for what 'God' is.

You asked for the reason/s WHY your argument P is NOT proof of some thing. I have told you WHY NOT.

I have also informed you of HOW you could improve your chances of making your argument P valid and sound. If, however, you prefer to reject that offering and just continue on how you are now, then so be it. But you are certainly NOT proving any thing worthwhile nor substantial with what you are doing now.

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pmIf attaching something such as “to me” is just another way of saying that you don’t know if the argument is a proof or not, this shows nothing about argument P.
Yes it does. By me stating: 'Your argument P is NOT a proof that God exists, to me' CLEARLY SHOWS SOME THING. What it SHOWS IS: 'Your argument P IS NOT a proof that God exists, to me'.

I will state it again, just in case you missed it again, 'Your argument P IS NOT a proof of any thing, to me', other than of how absolutely necessary words NEED to be clearly defined, and THAT definition agreed upon and accepted BEFORE any argument can be a truly valid and sound argument.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm The question in the opening post of this thread is,

“If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?”
Okay.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pmThe fact that you don’t know if it is a proof or not, shows nothing about whether or not the conditions on soundness/proof have been satisfied.
But I do KNOW that it is NOT a proof to me. You can add the "or not" in if you like if that helps you feel better about yourself. But the fact IS your argument P is NOT proof that God exists, for reasons ALREADY GIVEN.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm
And, as I am still on the same issue as I pointed out to you in my first response, to you, which you subsequently ignored, I will repeat it again; For YOUR argument to be a sound, valid argument you would have to first SHOW Who/What 'God' IS, AND, also prove that THAT/Thing HAS TO exist whenever something exists.
About your remark “For YOUR argument to be a sound, valid argument you would have to first SHOW Who/What 'God' IS, AND, also prove that THAT/Thing HAS TO exist whenever something exists.”, this remark seems inconsistent with what I take you to have implicitly acknowledged.
At least you are open and honest enough to see and admit that the "inconsistency" that seems to appear, to you, is a result of what you, yourself, are doing, that is; making assumptions/interpretations of some thing that may NOT have even happened.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm For the argument to be a sound argument, nothing has to be shown about the premises, nothing has to be proved about the premises, you don’t have to be convinced that the premises are true—the premises just have to be true.
For any premise to 'just have to be true' HAS TO BE SHOWN FIRST.

Of course a premise MIGHT be true FOR YOU. But if a premise is true FOR YOU ONLY, then that premise is NOT true, FOR OTHERS.

The only real reason to express/share an argument is to SHOW some thing. If, however, the premises are true FOR ONLY the speaker/writer, then what other purpose is there to express/share that "argument" with others?
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm Of course, in order to show/prove/convince you that the argument is sound, the truth of one or more of the premises might have to be demonstrated to you.
What do you mean by 'might have to be demonstrated to you'.

If you WANT to present and SHOW a sound argument, then you WILL HAVE TO demonstrate, to me anyway, the TRUTH of ALL premises.

Have fun TRYING TO present a sound argument, in order to prove some thing, WITHOUT first demonstrating the TRUTH of ALL the premises.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm Before any attempt to show that premise 1 in argument P is true could be undertaken [any attempt that had a chance of being viewed as successful, that is], it would have clear as to what it takes to prove something so that we don’t get into this same [tangential] line of questioning if a proof of premise P is offered, a line of questioning such as “in your attempt to produce a sound argument that God exists, you have to prove that the first premise of that argument is true That is, a line of questioning that starts with nothing more than, “You have to prove that the proof of one of the premises in your first proof is true”, is to be stopped before it gets started.
What do you WANT me/us to do?

Just ACCEPT that ALL of your arguments will be valid, sound arguments from now on, full stop?

If you can NOT prove what you are saying, then I suggest do NOT expect any one to accept what you say, or better still do NOT say any thing.

Considering what you just wrote here it comes across as very hypocritical and/or contradictory to also write; “If argument P is not a proof that God exists, why not?” I tell you WHY it is NOT proof, then you suggest NOT to question you.

Also, the effort you put into ASSUMING the above, and then writing out what you have here, could have been better spent in coming up with some sort of reasonable definition for what 'God' actually IS or at least COULD BE.

Either you can define what 'God' is and show how that definition would have to always exist when some thing exists or you can NOT. If you ever do write anything regarding this, then I will decide if it makes sense or not. Until then I suggest it is better for you NOT to ASSUME any thing prior.
Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm
Now are you suggesting/stating that your first premise is true?
If yes, then define what 'God' is, and then prove that that definition of 'God' must ALWAYS exist whenever something exists. Until you do that, then your argument P is NOT proof that God exists. For the reasons I have given here above, and in my first response to you here in this thread.
[my emphasis-- Hugh]

Can you see now that nothing you have said supports the claim that argument P is not a proof? Unless you change the conditions on sound argument/proof, at most you have made it clear that you don't know if it is a proof or not.

Cheers,

Hugh
I am unsure if this talking to yourself here helps or hinders you, but the assumptions you are making and the conclusions that you are jumping to are utterly and completely WRONG.

What I do KNOW, for sure, is YOUR argument P, without clarification, does NOT prove that God exists at all.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5415
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm
Can you see now that nothing you have said supports the claim that argument P is not a proof? Unless you change the conditions on sound argument/proof, at most you have made it clear that you don't know if it is a proof or not.
You questioned others whether they had attended College philosophy or not.
It appear if you had attended a philosophy class, you are a 'F' student.

Noted your syllogism format is correct but your P1 is very unsound and everyone has been trying to educate and teach you to see your own error. Surely you are familiar with GIGO, i.e. Garbage In Garbage Out.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5415
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Argument P:
• P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
P2. Something exists.
----
Therefore, 3. God exists.
Another flaw of the above argument is as follows;
• P1. Either nothing exists [empirically impossible] or God exists [empirically impossible].
P2. Something exists [empirically possible].
----
Therefore, 3. God exists.
In P1, two empirically impossible sub-premises are introduced.
P2 is based on empirical possibilities.
Thus there is a fallacy of equivocation between two different senses.
As such the conclusion is false.

In addition, I have proven 'God exists' is an empirical-rational-philosophical impossibility.
Thus P1 with "God exists" is a false premise.

Another problem is this;

P1. Either nothing exists or God exists.
Buddhist perspective aside, it is impossible for nothing to exists.
The default is always 'something exists'
To introduce 'nothing exists' is a falsehood in general.

Thus
• P1. Either falsehood [nothing exists] exists or God exists.
P2. Falsehood exists
C1. Therefore God does not exist.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2620
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm
Can you see now that nothing you have said supports the claim that argument P is not a proof? Unless you change the conditions on sound argument/proof, at most you have made it clear that you don't know if it is a proof or not.
This topic has officially disappeared entirely up its own arse. You are now hoping that your argument to prove God exists can be rendered sound if somebody first proves that God exists for you. Otherwise, so long as nobody can prove there is no God, your argument lives in a limbo where it's status as either a poor to the point of worthless argument, or a flat out fucked one, is moot.

Well done.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Hugh Nose wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:11 pm Can you see now that nothing you have said supports the claim that argument P is not a proof? Unless you change the conditions on sound argument/proof, at most you have made it clear that you don't know if it is a proof or not.
Nothing you've said supports the claim that it IS a proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence
TL;DR a valid proof is mathematically isomorphic to a valid computer program.

So if you believe your argument is a valid proof, then you should have no problem translating your "proof" into a programming language of your choice and making it execute.

Until you provide a syntactically valid algorithm in a language of your choosing it is safe for all of us to conclude that your argument is not a proof.

Proofs compute.