A proof that there is a God.

drnihili,

Question begging arguments are a more general category.
Click to expand...
I know that "question-begging" is used by some to refer to a more general category-- that is why I qualified it.
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?
Click to expand...
I don't think we should. I thought that is what you might have been suggesting. I am perfectly happy to stick with the definition of "proof" as sound argument, in which case I would say that my proof is a non-question-begging one (non-circular one) and yours is.

We can start over, if you like, and I will rephrase the opening line using "non-circular proof".

Once again, if you want to qualify my proposal/definition of proof, by all means do so. You continue to complain about my definition, but you don't offer anything in its place. What do you think that those who maintain that "You can't prove that God exists" mean when they say this. I am sure that you have heard intelligent people say this. You may even think this yourself.
I assume that those who say "You can't prove that God exists" don't mean nothing more than "You can't convince me that God exists".




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.
Click to expand...
"Idiosyncratic?" Just another complaint.

But even if your definition is granted, your conclusion that "these people seem to be mistaken" doesn't follow.
Click to expand...
My comment was
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.
Click to expand...
If it isn't clear, what I meant was, and what I think the remark says is, as far as anything that has been said here goes, those people seem to be mistaken, a point that you acknowledge (given, of course, my 'idiosyncratic' definition)

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.
Click to expand...
There is some ambiguity in your remarks here, but on what I would call the most obvious interpretation, they are clearly mistaken. If I am misinterpreting you, I apologize.

If you are saying that the demonstration of the soundness of my argument for the existence of God, will show that my detractors were mistaken, then it is clear, isn't it, that I don't have to provide any evidence at all showing that my proof is sound in order to 'conclude' that my detractors are mistaken. All that is necessary is that I know that the argument is sound. That is, all that I have to know to "conclude" that those who are trying to show that the argument is unsound are mistaken is that the argument is valid and that the premises are true.

If I want to persuade you, and others here, that you/they are mistaken, one way would be to show you/them that my argument is sound. Aren't you confusing what has to be the case for me to know with what I might have to do to bring you to know what I know?

I'm going to post this now. I'm not sure of the import of the rest of your post. At one place you put quotation marks around the word "proofs", and at another place (at the end) you didn't. What is the significance of the quotation marks? Do you simply want to know if I think these arguments are sound arguments?

Butte Montana
 
Butte,

My point is that as a response to people who claim there is no proof of god, your argument is a straw man. No one has made that claim using the sense of proof you offered.

drnihili
 
drnihili,

My point is that as a response to people who claim there is no proof of god, your argument is a straw man. No one has made that claim using the sense of proof you offered.
Click to expand...
I know, of course, that those who say that the existence of God cannot be proved won't readily accept my argument for the existence of God as a proof. BUT, do you really think this is because they have a different notion of proof? Isn't it, rather, that they are conflating the notion "proof" and with something else-- maybe with "something that will convince me" or with "something that will convince non-believers"?

If you think they have a different notion of "proof", what is this notion? You and others here seem to be maintaining that my argument is not a proof. I assume that you mean that the conditions on proof, as you understand the notion, have not been satisfied. But you won't say what the conditions are that have not been satisfied.

It surely is unreasonable to ask for a proof without making it clear what is wanted beyond a sound argument. Do you think that there is no relationship between the proof that it is said cannot be produced and a sound argument?

Butte
 
Look, if you want a definition of proof in common usage, then take a look at a dictionary. More than enough has been said in this thread about why you don't have a proof. I fyou were sincerely interested, you'd stop and try to understand the points other make. Instead you seem more intent upon doggedly defending a claim at all costs. You're welcome to do that of course, but you'll soon find that you're the only one in the conversation.

So you've convinced yourself that you have a proof. No one else agrees, but you've also convinced yourself that they just don't understand. If you're happy with that result, then carry on. If you're not, well you'll have to figure out some other strategy to take.
 
proof also tend to stand up when deconstructed. you original proof:
"1. If something exists, then there is a God.

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

take apart assumption one into two peices:
"1. something exists.

2. something can only exist if there is a God to create it.
----
3. something exists & There is a God to create it. "

lets deal with this first. does something exsist? I'd personnaly say yes, as I can see things, feel them, etc. My perspective is limited to interacting with items via my 5 major senses, so from my perspective, they most likely exsist.
Is god required for things to exist? I don't know. Therefore I cannot positively conclude that the final outcome is true. I can suppose that it may be true, but that results in your original proof being limited to only the possibility that it's conclusion is accurate. Therefor, it is not a proof, but a supposition.

It cannot be a proof until all assumptions and logical steps cannot be logically argued. While the logic of your "proof" is sound, the assumptions can be argued. Your "proof" is not a proof.

Prove that god is a prerequesit to the existance of anything, and you will have made assumption 1 a solid assumption. from that point, your logic will have proven God.
 
Originally posted by Butte Montana
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.
Click to expand...

This is why "valid" and "correct" are separate categories. I suggest suicide.
 
Originally posted by Butte Montana

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.
Click to expand...

Don't play stupid, it's unbecoming. A premise is itself a conclusion, listen to how you phrased it yourself, it's an if then statement. The problem with your argument is that the premise "If something exists, then there is a God" is false, because you have not established WHY there must be a God if something exists. Do this, and we can move on in the argument.
 
Originally posted by 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.
Click to expand...

A very good example, this is exactly the same reason why the origional conclusion is incorrect, one premise is based upon complicated (well or just frankly untrue) grounds. Why are you the president of the united states because you are typing on a computer? Why must there be a God for something to exist? It's the same thing.
 
Originally posted by Butte Montana
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.
Click to expand...

And this is the problem, exactly.
 
Originally posted by Butte Montana

This argument is question-begging in the sense that it assumes what it purports to prove in order to prove it;
Click to expand...

And in this way it is exactly like your first argument.





Originally posted by Butte Montana
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.
Click to expand...

If a premise of your conclusion is false then the conclusion itself must be false. One of your premises is untrue, as such the conclusion is invalid. Remember only a true premise and a true premise can yeild a true conclusion.

T+T=T
T+F=F
F+F=F
 
The idea behind this argument is the belief that everything that exists, exists because of something else which also exists. If God "was" before all else that "is" ever "became", then it is true. The very being of anything that "is" is evidence of God's existence simply because God's Nature is "existence itself".
 
1.something exists means theres no god

2.something exists

3.theres no god


See i can suggest this because for all we know its the very act of this existence which may have destroyed whatever there was before it.

1.there was god

2.something came into existence

3.something=no god any longer

4.there is no god

Of coarse this doesnt say there was never any god,but it can say there isnt any longer.

1.god=nothing

2.something=no god

3.there is no god=there is no nothing=there is something
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by moving
Same as "The watch and the watchmaker." You either get it or you don't.
Click to expand...

You see, if that had been the argument, then there would be something to have a discussion about. But he is very explicitly not making that argument. Let's not go putting words into his mouth.

He can't appeal to the watchmaker argument because that argument isn't sound. It's an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. Hence it can't count as a proof in the sense he wants.

As a side note, there's a lot more to the watchmaker argument that "you either get it or you don't", but that's a topic for a different thread.
 
As a side note, there's a lot more to the watchmaker argument that "you either get it or you don't", but that's a topic for a different thread.
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase that. You either believe it or you don't.
 
Butte,

"IF, in order to show that it is a proof (a sound argument)..."

Where did you get this bizzare notion that a sound argument is equivalent to a proof???

This notion is causing all of your troubles here.
 
Glaucon,

Where did you get this bizzare notion that a sound argument is equivalent to a proof???
Click to expand...

Couldn't I show someone (prove) that George W. Bush is at least 35 years old by presenting the following sound argument:

1. If someone is the President of the United States, then that person must be at least 35 years old.

2. George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
----
3. George W. Bush is at least 35 years old.

I don't think it is a stretch to claim that there is a significant connection between the notion "sound argument" and at least one notion of proof.

However, the 'definition' was offered more as a proposal, as a starting point for the discussion (at least some of it) that has ensued. As I have indicated several times, I am more than willing to consider revising this proposed 'definition', if someone will just explain how it fails to be a proof, or explain how it fails to show that those who maintain that the existence of God cannot be proved are mistaken. So far, respondents have not explained what is missing from the sound argument I have offered, which omission prevents it from being a proof.

Some seem to be contending that it isn't a proof because I haven't proved the premise, "If something exists, then there is a God". I pointed out that proof of the premises cannot be a condition on proof, because such a condition cannot be satisfied, in principle.

Some seem to think that the premise "If something exists, then there is a God", cannot be proved, and challenging me to prove it. But, of course, this is just an claim they make, and it is a claim that it would be foolish for me to try to prove to be false, until we all get clear about what a proof is. It would be a waste of time for me to produce a sound argument for the premise "If something exists, then there is a God", without resolving the "What is a proof?" question. To do so is to leave myself open to the same empty complaint "You haven't proved that "If something exists, then there is a God", because you haven't proved premise 1 in the argument that has "If something exists, then there is a God" as its conclusion.

Some seem to be contending that the argument hasn't convinced them, or that it wouldn't convince some. This I don't dispute. But this fact doesn't support a case for "the existence of God cannot be proved". It might support a case for "No one can prove to me that there is a God" or "No one can prove to all that there is a God", but not much more. At one point I suggested that the claim "The existence of God cannot be proved" emanates from a confusion between "proving" and "proving to me", or something like it.

My assumption has been that (some of) those who are denying that the existence of God can be proved, do not mean merely that they, themselves, cannot be convinced that there is a God. For some of these deniers will maintain that since the existence of God cannot be proved, I, Butte Montanta, cannot know that there is a God. They would not draw such a conclusion if all they were maintaining was that they, themselves, could not be convinced.

In any case, if you think that my "God" argument is not a proof that there is a God, why don't you say why-- what is missing, or is that the wrong question? DO you think a sound argument is a necessary condtion on proof but not a sufficient condition. Do you think that it is not even a necessary condition? Do you acknowledge the soundness of my "God" argument? Do you simply not know if it is sound or not? An "I don't know if the existence of God can be proved or not, because I don't know if Montana's "God" argument is sound or not" is a position that is a lot weaker than a lot of atheists would like to think they occupy

In any case, calling the notion that proofs are sound arguments bizzare (sic!) doesn't tell me, or anyone else WHAT you think is wrong with the proposal.

I've got to go teach a class, and so, leave without proof-reading the above. Please allow me the right to make corrections if I find. later, that I have left out words.

Butte Montana.
 
Ok, there are two easy ways to go depend on your background.

One is to take derivations to prove sequents rather than statements. The other is to move toward a discussion of plausibility. Depending on context, either solution might be preferred.

Mathematics generally takes the first route. A proof only proves it's conclusion provisionally, based upon the assumptions it makes and the background system of logic. If we take classical first order logic for granted, then your derivation proves only that it's conclusion is true if it's premises are.

Humanities typically take the latter route. At a minimum the premises of a proof must have a higher initial plausibility than the conclusion. Otherwise the reasoning has no probative force. Your derivation fails this requirement. This is why we say that it begs the question. Of course this means that proofs come in degrees just as plausibility does.

it is not bizarre to say that soundnes is related to the notion of proof. It is bizarre to say that they are the same. Most logic books don't deal with soundness except in passing. (Keep in mind we're talking about soundness at the level of derivation, not soundness at the level of a logical system. The latter is dealt with extensively but is an entirely different concept.) Critical Thinking texts do tend to put more emphasis on soundness, but do so more from the perspective of how to avoid non-logical errors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top