A proof that there is a God.

[Butte Montana]

One often hears people say that God's existence cannot be proved. Is this so?

Let us understand a proof to be a sound argument. Such an understanding fits with what is often suggested in Logic texts.

According to the logic texts, a sound argument is an argument that is valid and has only true premises. If that is so, then a believer might very well offer the following as a proof that there is a God.

1. If something exists, then there is a God.

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.


This argument is valid (the conclusion follws from the premises). Taking up the role of the believer, I contend that the two premises are true. Hence, this is a sound argument for the existence of God. Since a sound argument is a proof, this is a proof that there is a God.

Butte Montana

edited to correct typos

 

[SpyMoose]

i would say nice try, but its not. One of your premices is commicaly flawed.

Just because you put it in the form of syllogistic logic dosnt make it true. How do you get to the conclusion that "If something exists then there is a god?" this cant be used as a premice because there is nothing that can prove it.

 

[SpyMoose]

also i think there are some nihilists floating around on the board, so your second premice "something exists" will probably also be called into question by somone else. why not try to proove that one too.

 

[Mystech]

This would work if your premises were true, however the idea that "if something exists, then there must be a god" is tragically flawed.

Please, explain to us how this premise is both valid and true.

 

[drnihili]

Ah, you've managed to hit upon one of the trivialities of logic. Valid arguments are very easy to come by. In fact for every statement, true or false, there's a valid argument that proves it. And if the statement is true, then there's a sound argument that proves it.

However, the mere fact that an argument is valid doesn't mean that it ought to be taken as convincing. Your argument is an example of this. It's validity is rhetorically worthless. Nobody ought to be convinced by your argument. It begs the question. Any argument that would support your premises would independently support the conclusion. Thus your argument cannot be seen as offering any proof in the rhetorical sense.

TO make the point clearer, you do have a proof in one very thins sense of the word "proof". However there are also proofs in the same sense that there is no god. What is wanted is a proof in the sense of something that is reasonably taken as convincing, not merely a valid argument whose premises will be accepted by people who already agree with the conclusion.

 

[Butte Montana]

A proof that this town is Harrisburg.

1. This town is the Capital of Pennsylvania.
2. If this town is the Capital of Pennsylvania, then this town is Harrisburg.
-----
3. This town is Harrisburg.

i would say nice try, but its not. One of your premices is commicaly flawed.
Just because you put it in the form of syllogistic logic dosnt make it true. How do you get to the conclusion that "If something exists then there is a god?" this cant be used as a premice because there is nothing that can prove it.

The proposition "If something exists, then there is a God" isn't a conclusion here. It is a premise in the argument.

also i think there are some nihilists floating around on the board, so your second premice "something exists" will probably also be called into question by somone else. why not try to proove that one too.

Some nihilist might question premise 1 above. That doesn't call it into question, nor does it change the fact that it is a proof. The mere fact that someone questions something doesn't show anything does it?

This would work if your premises were true, however the idea that "if something exists, then there must be a god" is tragically flawed.

Please, explain to us how this premise is both valid and true.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that the idea is "tragically flawed". Could you put your complaint in other words. I haven't said that the premise is valid (a logical truth) , unless you merely mean by "valid", "true". The premise is true in virtue of the facts ("How is this premise true?"); that is how the premises in the argument above are true.


Butte Montana

 

[Butte Montana]

Ah, you've managed to hit upon one of the trivialities of logic. Valid arguments are very easy to come by. In fact for every statement, true or false, there's a valid argument that proves it. And if the statement is true, then there's a sound argument that proves it.

You mean that for every statment, true or false, there is a valid argument that has it (the statment) as a conclusion. If by "proof" we mean sound argument, then it is not true that for every statment true or false, there is a proof for it.

However, the mere fact that an argument is valid doesn't mean that it ought to be taken as convincing. Your argument is an example of this. It's validity is rhetorically worthless. Nobody ought to be convinced by your argument. It begs the question. Any argument that would support your premises would independently support the conclusion. Thus your argument cannot be seen as offering any proof in the rhetorical sense.

The argument is not question-begging if you "question-begging" you mean that it assumes what it is attempting to prove as a premise.

I am not sure why you think "Any argument that would suppport your premises would independently support the conclusion" is an objection, if that is how it is intended. Perhaps you could rephrase your objection.

TO make the point clearer, you do have a proof in one very thins sense of the word "proof". However there are also proofs in the same sense that there is no god. What is wanted is a proof in the sense of something that is reasonably taken as convincing, not merely a valid argument whose premises will be accepted by people who already agree with the conclusion.

Once again, if we use "proof" to refer to sound arguments , but not unsound arguments, as I suggested in the opening post, then there are no proofs that there is no god.

If you want to put other conditions on proof, you may do so. Just tell us/me what they are. Do you want to suggest that sound arguments are proofs only if they are convincing? If so, at the very least, you will have to explain what you mean by "convincing".

Maybe I am just missing your main point(s).

Butte Montana

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by Butte Montana

Once again, if we use "proof" to refer to sound arguments , but not unsound arguments, as I suggested in the opening post, then there are no proofs that there is no god.

If you want to put other conditions on proof, you may do so. Just tell us/me what they are. Do you want to suggest that sound arguments are proofs only if they are convincing? If so, at the very least, you will have to explain what you mean by "convincing".

Maybe I am just missing your main point(s).

Butte Montana

If all we meant by "proof" was a sound argument, then nobody would care about proofs. You give me any true statement, however complicated, and I can produce a sound argument with that statement as a conclusion in very short order.

Proofs are interesting because they can take us from statements we already accept to statements that we don't already accept. Your proof doesn't do this.

That your proof begs the question is given away in part by your own justification of the premises. The ground you present is that you are a believer, someone who believes in god. So by your own admission, your reason for accepting the premises is that you already accept the conclusion. This means that the proof itself is doing no work. Furthermore is is highly unlikely that anyone would accept the premises unless they alread accepted the conclusion. If you think otherwise, then please provide an argument for the first premise that doesn't presuppose that god exists.

The situation here is similar to the Ontological Argument, particularly recent modal versions of it. The arguments are valid, and believers take them to be sound. However, no independent support can be mustered for the premises, and they are not self evident.

 

[SpyMoose]

Originally posted by Butte Montana


The proposition "If something exists, then there is a God" isn't a conclusion here. It is a premise in the argument.


Some nihilist might question premise 1 above. That doesn't call it into question, nor does it change the fact that it is a proof. The mere fact that someone questions something doesn't show anything does it?

All premices are the conclusions of some other syllogism, your first premice isnt exactly self evedent, its got weird hidden assumptions. I was suggesting that you explain how you developed that as a valid premice.

As for the nihilists, i wasnt insinuating that they would find a flaw with premice 1, its premice 2 "Something exists" that they would have a problem with. And you only think thier questioning it dosnt matter because one hasnt come in raving and wailing and slobbering about "Man how can you know anything exists maaaaaaaaaaan?"

 

[Nasor]

1. If I am typing at a computer, then I must be the president of the united states.
2. I am typing at a computer.
Ergo – I am the president of the united states.

 

[Butte Montana]

drnihili,

If all we meant by "proof" was a sound argument, then nobody would care about proofs.

You are free to explain what you mean by "proof". If you think that my concept of proof is in some way wrong-headed, please say why. It looks to me like you might be conflating two different notions-- What it takes to prove, and what it takes to convince some particular person.

You give me any true statement, however complicated, and I can produce a sound argument with that statement as a conclusion in very short order.

What is this supposed to show?

Proofs are interesting because they can take us from statements we already accept to statements that we don't already accept.

Is this a definition of "proof" or your notion of interesting proof .

That your proof begs the question is given away in part by your own justification of the premises. The ground you present is that you are a believer, someone who believes in god. So by your own admission, your reason for accepting the premises is that you already accept the conclusion.

This is a bit wild! I haven't offered any justification, nor have I offered any ground, for either of the premises. I do maintain, here, that the premises are true. Your claim that my reason for accepting the premises is that I already accept the conclusion is a strange one, and I have no idea why you think that this is so. Would you maintain the same about my "Capital of Pennsylvania" argument?

This means that the proof itself is doing no work. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that anyone would accept the premises unless they alread accepted the conclusion.

Even if this were true, it doesn't show that the argument isn't a proof, if sound arguments are proofs.

You might consider the distinction between "producing a proof" and "showing that a proof is a proof". It surely cannot be a condition on producing proofs that each premise must itself be proved, and each premise of each proof of each premise must be proved, and so on-- such a condition cannot be satisfied.


Butte Montana

edited to insert my in my first response above.

 

[Butte Montana]

Nasor,

1. If I am typing at a computer, then I must be the president of the united states.
2. I am typing at a computer.
Ergo – I am the president of the united states.

I am curious as to what this is supposed to show. Surely the fact that one can produce unsound arguments doesn't show that one cannot produce sound arguments. Surely it doesn't raise any question about my "God" argument, that it doesn't also raise about my "Pennsylvania" argument.

How about specifying what you think producing your argument (an argument that you know to be unsound) shows about my argument for the existence of God.

Butte Montana

 

[glaucon]

LOL

'Ahem'....

While formally speaking, your logic is sound, and your argument therefore valid, you seem to be forgetting that validity has nothing to do with truth (sic).

By the by, your first premiss is not only an interesting discussion in of itself, but also highly entertaining.

 

[Butte Montana]

glaucon,

While formally speaking, your logic is sound, and your argument therefore valid, you seem to be forgetting that validity has nothing to do with truth (sic).

Could you be more specific, please? Exactly where does it seem to you that I have forgotten that validity has nothing to do with truth? If, for example, I had maintained that the truth of the premises follows from the validity of the argument, one interpretation of your remark would be on target. But I haven't done that, and I don't think that.

Your post might be interpreted in the following way (part of the post, anyway).

1. If Butte Montana has forgotten that validity has nothing to do with truth, then the argument that she has presented is unsound.

2. Butte Montana has forgotten that validity has nothing to do with truth.
----
3. The argument that she has presented in unsound.


Help, Please!

Butte Montana

 

[glaucon]

What I mean is simply this, and no more:

A believer may indeed offer your argument as a proof that there is a God. And the argument is indeed valid and sound. But, a sound argument is not necessarily a proof. At the best, one could say it forms a Conditional proof. What's important to remember here is that we're dealing with first-order propositional logic which, like most logical methods, is a Deductive method of reasoning. As we all know, deductive reason can never ADD anything to knowledge. Ergo.....

 

[drnihili]

Butte,

If all you want for a proof is an argument that is valid and that a believer will contend is true, there's a much easier one.

There is a God.
--------------------
Therefore, There is a God.

This argument is equally as sound as the one you present.

The question is, why do you want a proof of the existce of God? Also, how will you respond to someone who does not accept your first premise?

 

[drnihili]

On a separate note, I'm curious where you got the idea that "proof" meant "sound argument". I don't think I've ever seen it used that way.

 

[Butte Montana]

drnihili,

Butte,

If all you want for a proof is an argument that is valid and that a believer will contend is true, there's a much easier one.

There is a God.
--------------------
Therefore, There is a God.

This argument is equally as sound as the one you present.

This argument is question-begging in the sense that it assumes what it purports to prove in order to prove it; mine is not question-begging in this sense.

We can add that as a condition on proof, if you like.

So, a proof is a sound argument that is not question-begging (in the sense of assuming as a premise, the conclusion of the argument). That's the spirit.

The question is, why do you want a proof of the existce of God?

My opening post indicated why, didn't it. There are many who maintain that there are no proofs for the existence of God. So far, no one has provided any reason to think that my proof is not a proof, and so, so far, these people seem to be mistaken.

Also, how will you respond to someone who does not accept your first premise?

I am not clear about the import of the question. How does someone's non-acceptance of the truth of the first premise affect its truth? Unless it does, the fact that a person does not accept is irrelevant to the status of my argument as a proof.

I will acknowledge, once again, that I have not demonstrated that this argument is a sound argument. But neither has anyone shown that it is not a sound argument. IF, in order to show that it is a proof (a sound argument) I have to show that the conditions on sound argument have been satisfied, then in order to show that it is not a proof, doesn't one have to show that (one or more of) the conditions are not satisfied. No one here has done that.

Butte Montana

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by Butte Montana
drnihili,

This argument is question-begging in the sense that it assumes what it purports to prove in order to prove it; mine is not question-begging in this sense.

We can add that as a condition on proof, if you like.

So, a proof is a sound argument that is not question-begging (in the sense of assuming as a premise, the conclusion of the argument). That's the spirit.

The term you're looking for is "circular". Question begging arguments are a more general category. But why should we add a proviso that proofs be non-circular? Circularity is not a logical fallacy, it's a rhetorical one. Why should we accept a rhetorical restriction on the concept of proof? And if we are going to place rhetorical limits, why stop there?

My opening post indicated why, didn't it. There are many who maintain that there are no proofs for the existence of God. So far, no one has provided any reason to think that my proof is not a proof, and so, so far, these people seem to be mistaken.

No one has provided a reason to think yours is not a proof give your rather idiosyncratic definition. But even if your definition is granted, your conclusion that "these people seem to be mistaken" doesn't follow. At best you can conclude "these people have not demostrated that I am mistaken". In order to conclude that your detractors were mistaken, you would have to provide at least a prima facie argument that your proof was sound. But you haven't done that. You've asserted that it is sound, but haven't provided any reason for thinking it is.

Here are some more "proofs" that there is a god.

If I own a car, then there is a god.
I own a car.
-------------------------
There is a god

If there is no god, then the moon is made of cheese.
The moon is not made of cheese.
----------------------------------------------
There is a god

Either there is no god or Bill Gates is a pauper.
Bill Gates is not a pauper.
-----------------------------------------------
There is a god.

If anyone believes there is a god, then there is a god.
Someone believes there is a god.
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is a god.

What is your assessment of these proofs?

drnihili
I could go on and on and on,
but tonight, I've got a headache.

 

[Nasor]

Originally posted by Butte Montana
I am curious as to what this is supposed to show. Surely the fact that one can produce unsound arguments doesn't show that one cannot produce sound arguments. Surely it doesn't raise any question about my "God" argument, that it doesn't also raise about my "Pennsylvania" argument.

How about specifying what you think producing your argument (an argument that you know to be unsound) shows about my argument for the existence of God.

Your 'proof' is unconvincing because it is based on the premise that if something exists then there must be a god, which is a premise that very few people would agree with. You can't logically conclude that if anything exists then god must also exists. If you believe that to be the case, the burden of proof is on you, as the one making the positive claim, to prove it. But of course you can't.

My syllogism was intended to illustrate that you can prove anything if you start with a faulty premise.