A proof that there is a God.

[drnihili]

Originally posted by Butte Montana
Glaucon,



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.

You could only "show someone" the conclusion, if they found the premises more plausible than the conclusion.

Notice here that you use "prove" in the sense of "show someone". This is much closer to what people mean when they say that the existence of god can't be proven. There is no good arument from plausible premises that leads to the conclusion that there is a god.

 

[glaucon]

Exactly.

 

[Xaositecte]

Where To Begin...

First of All, basic Debating,

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.

And all manner of similar arguements presented in this thread, are Circular Arguements. This is why your "proof" is false, The Premise is not necessarily true, thus, the conclusion is not necessarily true.

Similarly, your original arguement is circular. Independant of anything else, it's impossible to disprove, because you're putting it in a vacuum where the premise is assumed to be true.

"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. "

Yes, If the Premise is False, the Conclusion is false. Even if the Premise is True, there are still multiple factors to consider, the difference between Causation and Correlation, for instance.

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.

Then by all means, Define "Proof" - as you see it.

Build your Arguement, provide your own definitions, and leave it open for people to challenge them. www.dictionary.com is a good start, though you may wish to rely on some other source for your... Curious definitions. I'm interested to see what kind of sound arguement you can give for "If something exists, then there is a God."

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.

You're trying to point out a difference between Fact and Opinion. Since Opinion is what you and I think, and Fact is what has been proven to be true, most arguements have to rely on Fact, not opinion.

And nothing has been factually proven.

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

"I know Montana's "God" Arguement is not sound, based on a lack of facts presented to back up his arguement." - is more like it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to have a basic grasp of Logical parodoxes, but I'm really curious whether you're defending a point you know to be indefensible outside your own independant rules structure (which most of the people herein seem to be playing along with wonderfully) out of academic curiousity - or if you actually have convinced yourself of this arguement?

Independant of the question of whether god exists, do you honestly think this arguement holds up to any kind of scrutiny?

 

[Butte Montana]

drnihili,

I asked,

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.

To which drnihili responded,

You could only "show someone" the conclusion, if they found the premises more plausible than the conclusion.

Notice here that you use "prove" in the sense of "show someone". This is much closer to what people mean when they say that the existence of god can't be proven. There is no good arument from plausible premises that leads to the conclusion that there is a god.

I don't think I understand what you are saying here, because, as I interpret it, there is nothing in the way of an objection to what I have said.

With respect to the remark about the premises being more plausible than the conclusion, isn't it true that all that has to occur with respect to the person that I show is that the person believe the premises? If they believe the premises, assuming the validity is not in question, they will believe the conclusion. The premises may simply bring to light facts that they weren't aware of. I'll say a bit more about plausibility below.

My use of "prove" here is the same as it has been-- all I have offered in this example is a sound argument. "Show someone" is just another phrase for "prove to someone" and we have already talked about the distinction that can be expressed as a distinction between "proving something" and "proving something to someone". I agreed, indeed I said, that people often seem to mean 'prove it to me when they say "prove it". If I present them with a proof that they don't find convincing, it will be true that I have not proved the conclusion to them. Surely, though, this will be a case of me not presenting them with a proof that they find convincing rather than a case of me not have presented them with a proof. Is a proof of a new theorem that a mathematician discovers not a proof until someone else has the theorem proved to him/her?

Let me finish with a remark or to about your closing claim: "There is no good argument from plausible premises that leads to the conclusion that there is a god". (I assume that what you mean by "good" is "sound"; please correct me if I am wrong) Is you employment of plausibility here is a bit different from the earlier employment. Earlier the plausbility was a comparative plausibility bwith respect to the premises and the conclusion. Here it seems to be matter of plausibility along some other dimension, though it isn't clear what. If the latter is just a matter of plausibility as far as the person to whom the proof is offered is concerned, then this seems once again to be running together the notions "prove" and "prove to someone".

My response to the claim that "there is no good argument from plausible premises that leads to the conclusion that there is a god", is, first, to note that you are, in effect, placing yourself among those I was referring to when I began this thread "One often hears people say that God's existence cannot be proved." The second part of my response is to point out that your claim is nothing more that a denial that my "God" argument is a good argument with plausible premises. You may not find the premises (one of them, anyway) plausible. But there are many who find the premises quite plausible. However, I certainly would not use the fact that many find the premises quite plausible to try to convince you that the argument is a sound argument.

I am glad to see that you have remained in the discussion. Contrary to what you said earlier, I am trying, sincerely, to understand why you think you can say of my argument "It isn't a proof" rather than "I don't know if it is a proof or not" (I assume that this change is, at least, part of what you are resisting). As an act of good will, why don't you take a few minutes and explain to Xaositecte and to Mystech that that they are in terrible need of some training in elementary logic.

Butte Montana

 

[drnihili]

There are a number of ways to take this discussion, I'm not sure which, if any, is likely to be productive.

The notion of plausibility is a difficult one. It is a non-technical notion which has resisted attempt to formalize it. This by itself should not count against it's use, many ordinary notions are difficult to formalize. Any formalization of it, however, is likely to appeal to the notion of epistemic probability. Put in these terms my claim is roughly that you lack a proof because that posterior epistemic probability of your conclusion is no greater than it's prior epistemic probability. Put less technically, if someone were to accept the premises of your proof and deny the conclusion, prior to seeing your proof, then your proof would not move them to accept the conclusion or even assign it a greater probability than before seeing it.

Contrary to what glaucon said above, deductive proofs do add to our knowledge. Otherwise mathematics would be a very poor field. We do not know all of the statements that are provable from statemens that we already accept. Many a person has become convinced of the truth of a conclusion after seeing a deductive proof. Prior to the proof they assigned a high epistemic probability to the premises and a low probability to the conclusion. After seeing the proof they assigned an increased probability to the proof.

Now, plausibility is a normative rather than a descriptive notion. WHat's at stake is how one ought, in virtue of rationality, to believe, not how people in fact believe. So the claim is that a rational person ought not to assign an increased probability to your conclusion merely on the basis of seeing your proof.

If someone were to accept the premises of your proof and yet deny it's conclusion, that would be evidence against their rationality. You can probably gues that single inference deductions are almost never (I would say never, but I like to hedge my bets) proofs.

So what do you need for a proof? You need an argument for which a person, qua rational being, might assign a higher probability to the premises than the conclusion, and such that upon seeing your proof the person would be epistemically obliged to assign as high a probability to the conclusion as they do to the premises.

Ok, that's one direction, here's another.

You claim to have a counterexample to the statement "There is no proof that god exists." In order to test whether your claim is correct, we must understand what the statement means. First off, it cannot be reasonably taken to mean that there is no valid argument that god exists. It is widely knows that there are many such arguments. The people who claim there is no proof, are aware of these arguments. So we could only interpret the statement in that way by claiming that the people who made it were either dishonest or irrational. The norms of civil discourse and interpretation do not allow that in these circumstances.

But neither can we take them to mean that there is no sound argument. Many of the people who have claimed there is no proof of god are themselves theists. They believe that the premises and conclusion of at least some of the valid arguments are true. Thus they cannot mean that there is no sound argument.

If you'll look at the literature, you'll find that the discussion centers around the probative force of the proofs, about whether the proof could reasonably taken as the basis of rational belief. This is something like the first direction I took above.

A good example to look at is Charles Hartshorne's modal version of the ontological argument. Hartshorne demonstration that the first inference of the following argument is valid in modal logic. He then maintained that his demonstration, combined with the following argument, constitute a proof that god exists.

If god exists, then it is necessary that god exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If it's possible that god exists, then he does exist.
It is possible that god exists.
--------------------------------
God exists.

Hartshorne at least has a plausible candidate for a proof. It is certainly possible for a reasonable person to accept his two premises and yet not accept the conclusion. Furthermore, the claim that god is possible is so weak as have some call to plausibility. THe first premise is merely a partial definition of "god", and so is unobjectionable.

Discussion of whether Hartshorne actually has a proof has centered on the plausibility of the seond premise. No one, so far as I know, has seriously questione the first premise or the inference from it.

By the way, for completeness sake I should note that Hartshorne was following up on a suggestion made by Norman Malcolm that there are actually two versions of the ontological argument present in Anselm's writings and that the second, modal version is a proof.

 

[Xaositecte]

Disregarding the entire series of valid points made by (among others) Mystech and myself because we're reaching outside the logical box you've constructed doesn't enhance your arguement any. To be honest, I've never taken a Logic class, and am treating it like a debate, wherein it is very valid and proper to attack a premise that sees as false, before even tackling the conclusion.

Quite Simply: Before I can even consider the conclusion, I have to accept the Premise as true.

You -have not- demonstrated that the Premise is true.

Just as Nasor's arguement earlier, and your response;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

It shows that a Premise can be false, and must be verified before any conclusions derived from that Premise must be proven true before the conclusion can be accepted as true.

As a parting question, given your interpretation of logic, do you agree that this arguement is a valid proof:

1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god.


?

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by Xaositecte

As a parting question, given your interpretation of logic, do you agree that this arguement is a valid proof:

1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god.


?

Allow me to answer for him. Yes, that is valid. He will deny that it is sound.

What we're running into here is a clash between technical terms and common language. In Logic, "valid" has a very specific meaning. It merely means that it is impossible for the premises of the argument to all be true while at the same time the conclusion is false. It says nothing at all about whether the premises are true or even vaguely reasonable. To say that an argument is "sound" is just to say that it is valid and all the premises are true.

 

[Xaositecte]

First of all, Let me Thank you for Clarifying that, I honestly hadn't the slightest idea what the difference between Valid and Sound was in terms of logic. There are more than a few other terms I'm unfamiliar with going through this debate, hence why I asked (Albeit not really in the right way, all things considered) - for definitions above.. And now, I suppose I'll continue;


Why would

"1. If something exists, then there is a God.
2. Something exists
---------
3. God Exists"

Be considered in any way sound, while

"1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god. "

might not be?

What, if anything, is the difference between those statements?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Butte Montana
One often hears people say that God's existence cannot be proved. Is this so?

Yes.

Originally posted by Butte Montana

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).

The argument is valid until you attempt to define what "god" is, then you have a little problem. Know what I mean?

Originally posted by Butte Montana

Taking up the role of the believer,

If you classify yourself as a believer you turn your argument in a circle. Especially if you're "taking up a role". To find an answer you should neither believe or disbelieve... there is only plausibility in the end eh (e.g. "it seemed plausible or it didn't").

Originally posted by Butte Montana

I contend that the two premises are true.

The funny thing is that my good sense cannot deflate your delusionary balloon.. nor yours mine - we are ultimately responsible to recognize 'good sense' for ourselves eh? In essence, we are merely stuck hoping we have a clue.. or laughing about the fact that no matter how much we think we know - we don't really know shit.

Originally posted by Butte Montana

Hence, this is a sound argument for the existence of God.

Or a gigantic potatoe squid from galapilogamos.

If something exists, there is a gigantic potatoe squid from glapilogamos.

something exists.

there is a gigantic potatoe squid from glapilogamos.

The power of communication is almost.. godlike.

Originally posted by Butte Montana

Since a sound argument is a proof, this is a proof that there is a God.

Or anything else you think should exist because something does.

 

[Butte Montana]

Disregarding the entire series of valid points made by (among others) Mystech and myself because we're reaching outside the logical box you've constructed doesn't enhance your arguement any. To be honest, I've never taken a Logic class, and am treating it like a debate, wherein it is very valid and proper to attack a premise that sees as false, before even tackling the conclusion.

I wouldn't say that I have disregarded the material posted by you (and/ or Mystech). It is just that stretches of the material in your post verges on the incoherent. This may sound harsh, but when a person says, of an argument such as

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.

And all manner of similar arguements presented in this thread, are Circular Arguements . This is why your "proof" is false, The Premise is not necessarily true, thus, the conclusion is not necessarily true.

, I really have no confidence that I understand the points that person is attempting to make. The "President" argument that I provided is not a circular argument by the definition of circular argument in the link you provide as a reference. If I make the assumption that you understood what you read in that link, then I have to conclude that I have no idea what you are saying about my "President" argument.

Independant of anything else, it's impossible to disprove, because you're putting it in a vacuum where the premise is assumed to be true.

I have no idea what this means.

You said to another

First of all, Let me Thank you for Clarifying that, I honestly hadn't the slightest idea what the difference between Valid and Sound was in terms of logic.

In the post with which I started this thread, I said,

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.

Butte Montana

 

[Butte Montana]

wesmorris,

Of my argument,

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

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

You said

This argument is valid (the conclusion follws from the premises).

The argument is valid until you attempt to define what "god" is, then you have a little problem. Know what I mean?

In fact, I have no idea what you mean. If the argument is valid, it is valid, isn't it? An explication of what I mean by "God" certainly isn't going to change the validity of the argument, but you probably aren't suggesting that, so, once again, I have no idea what you mean.

Taking up the role of the believer,

If you classify yourself as a believer you turn your argument in a circle.

I think this point has already be taken up when it was urged by an earlier poster. Whether or not I am a believer has nothing to do with the circulairty/non-circularity of the argument that I have presented. If you think otherwise, please explain. Is any argument for any conclusion circular if it is presented by someone who believes the conclusion is true? That is going to make all of your arguments against me circular. I must misunderstand you here, so help, please!

To find an answer you should neither believe or disbelieve... there is only plausibility in the end eh (e.g. "it seemed plausible or it didn't").

I am not trying to find an answer about the existence of God here.

The funny thing is that my good sense cannot deflate your delusionary balloon.. nor yours mine - we are ultimately responsible to recognize 'good sense' for ourselves eh? In essence, we are merely stuck hoping we have a clue.. or laughing about the fact that no matter how much we think we know - we don't really know shit.

I don't share your stated view that we really don't know shit, but if that is your view, what are you doing here and why are you talking to me?


Butte Montana

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Butte Montana
I don't share your stated view that we really don't know shit, but if that is your view, what are you doing here and why are you talking to me?

Illustrating to you how you don't know shit.

You were right, your argument isn't valid at all. My bad.

Why didn't you retort to the part where I showed the flaw in your logic?

 

[wesmorris]

More

Originally posted by Butte Montana
wesmorris,
You said In fact, I have no idea what you mean. If the argument is valid, it is valid, isn't it?

Sorry, I was wrong. It's a little tricky though because the validity of your argument is conditional. It depends on what you insert at the end of first line and the conclusion drawn in the second right?

Originally posted by Butte Montana

An explication of what I mean by "God" certainly isn't going to change the validity of the argument, but you probably aren't suggesting that, so, once again, I have no idea what you mean.

I think that's exactly backwards. In fact, the entire validity of your argument tentatively rests on what you mean by 'god'. As soon as you settle on a definition, you bring up a whole new set of questions see?

What I was attempting to illustrate in a broad sense was the fact that there is no methodology for selecting one instance of a definition of god over the other (unless of course you know of one that I'm not aware of). More specific to this case however I was illustrating that your usage of the word 'god' is no more specific than using the variable "x".

Originally posted by Butte Montana

I think this point has already be taken up when it was urged by an earlier poster. Whether or not I am a believer has nothing to do with the circulairty/non-circularity of the argument that I have presented. If you think otherwise, please explain.

That would be true if you weren't so invested that you can't see the flaw in your logic, yes. If however in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary you insist your reasoning to be valid, your personal beliefs turn your argument into a circle..

Originally posted by Butte Montana

I must misunderstand you here, so help, please!

I will presume only to illustrate, I don't hold the following to be true: Well, I did note that you didn't address the meat of my illustration as to why your logic is flawed. That is evidence supportive of the presumption that you aren't really concerned with logical validity, but merely to justify your assertion regardless of the ojective validity. If you can do so by destroying the character of those who attack your argument, it is easier that attacking the logic.

We haven't interacted long enough for me to make that determination of you, but I've seen this a gazillion times. It's simply human nature.

Originally posted by Butte Montana

I am not trying to find an answer about the existence of God here.

Hehe, you're funny. Smartass beeatch!

 

[Xaositecte]

Originally posted by Butte Montana
I wouldn't say that I have disregarded the material posted by you (and/ or Mystech). It is just that stretches of the material in your post verges on the incoherent. This may sound harsh, but when a person says, of an argument such as

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 suppose that's where we have the issue, You're using all kinds of definitions from a logic perspective, whereas I'm coming at it from the perspective of Debate. They're entirely different languages as far as I can tell, your posts are just about as incoherant to me as mine are to you.

I really have no confidence that I understand the points that person is attempting to make. The "President" argument that I provided is not a circular argument by the definition of circular argument in the link you provide as a reference. If I make the assumption that you understood what you read in that link, then I have to conclude that I have no idea what you are saying about my "President" argument.

In essence, It's an arguement that uses itself as justification, which every single three-point arguement presented here is doing. Giving reasons as to why the Arguement is correct (I.E. United States Law states that an individual must be at least 35 years old to be president) - backing up an assertion with facts outside the arguement prevents it from being circular.

Any discussion of that arguement would be something like,

"Well, why does the president have to be at least 35 years old?"
"Because the President has to be at least 35 years old."


Everything else in your post is, in one way or another, confusion over the point of:

I Want you to Prove the Premises to be True!

 

[drnihili]

Butte has given a valid argument and claims the premises are true. However, he has made no attempt to justify the premises. You, quite understandably, want him to justify his premises. Here arises the problem, I'll put this in debate terms rather than logic. (THe two are closely related, but different.)

Butte can rightly argue as follows.

Every argument starts from premises. You can't require that the arguer always supply justification for each of the premises. Any such justification would itself be an argument starting from premises, which would in turn require justification. So requiring that all premises be independently justified will lead to an infinite regress.

So if you want to require that Butte supply a justification of his premises, then it's up to you to say why his argument requires it, even though not all arguments require it.

 

[Xaositecte]

Well..

'Aight, so it boils down to, why do I want Butte Montana to Justify his Premises?

Trying to avoid a logic arguer behaving like the annoying little girl on Animaniacs years ago who would keep asking, "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" - every time an explaination was offered. I see the point.

Because, in debate anyways, if someone comes up with a point, it's assumed to be correct until someone else asks them to justify the point. This is usually done by citing a reputable source (Scientific study, Survey, News Article, direct observation, etc.) - or further explaining the point. The Justification I have to give for making someone justify their premises is, politely put, "I'm unfamiliar with your premises, and know of nothing in my background or research that supports it. Would you please cite the sources which cause you to believe your premise to be true?"

Alternatively, I could cite accepted scientific models of the creation of the Universe, and explainations for existence which, although incomplete, have more justification for them then the premises given by Butte Montana. Disputing the arguement itself (as debate teaches) rather than the format of the arguement (which has been occuring in this thread) is what I'm familiar with, and what makes sense to me...

 

[drnihili]

Re: Well..

Originally posted by Xaositecte
'Aight, so it boils down to, why do I want Butte Montana to Justify his Premises?

Trying to avoid a logic arguer behaving like the annoying little girl on Animaniacs years ago who would keep asking, "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" - every time an explaination was offered. I see the point.

Because, in debate anyways, if someone comes up with a point, it's assumed to be correct until someone else asks them to justify the point. This is usually done by citing a reputable source (Scientific study, Survey, News Article, direct observation, etc.) - or further explaining the point. The Justification I have to give for making someone justify their premises is, politely put, "I'm unfamiliar with your premises, and know of nothing in my background or research that supports it. Would you please cite the sources which cause you to believe your premise to be true?"

Alternatively, I could cite accepted scientific models of the creation of the Universe, and explainations for existence which, although incomplete, have more justification for them then the premises given by Butte Montana. Disputing the arguement itself (as debate teaches) rather than the format of the arguement (which has been occuring in this thread) is what I'm familiar with, and what makes sense to me...

But you still haven't said why he is obligated in this case to justify his premises. You can't insist that any call for justification must be honored, or you'll be back at the Animaniacs episode.

What in the nature of Butte's argument makes it such that he is required to provide additional justification? I've attempted an answer to this above based on the epistemic probability of the conclusion relative to that of the premises. What answer do you give?

 

[Xaositecte]

Short and sweet;

I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever leading me to believe the Premise. Without that Evidence, I cannot accurately ascertain the soudness of the arguement.

The Evidence I am aware of contradicts both the premise and the conclusion, thus, justification of your premise is necessary for me to accept the premise as truth.

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by Xaositecte
Short and sweet;

I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever leading me to believe the Premise. Without that Evidence, I cannot accurately ascertain the soudness of the arguement.

The Evidence I am aware of contradicts both the premise and the conclusion, thus, justification of your premise is necessary for me to accept the premise as truth.

Ok, but notice that that isn't about the argument presented, that's about your state of knowledge. That explains why you don't agree with the argument, but it doesn't explain why the argument isn't a good one.

If we said that arguments weren't good whenever someone sincerely disagreed with their premises, then there would be exceedingly few good arguments, perhaps none. We'd be back at the Animaniacs. I'll wager that there are a good many mathematical proofs that you wouldn't agree with either. Does that mean that they aren't proofs? Or merely that they aren't convincing to you.

Unless you want to relativize the notion of proof, you can't say that whether something counts as a proof depends upon features of the audience that happens to hear it. And there are lots of reasons not to relativize the notion of proof. I'm not saying that audience doesn't matter when considering arguments. I'm saying that it can't matter in a particular way, in the way that determines whether something is a proof.

Butte is perfectly willing to admit that people may disagree with his premises, and that he has said nothing that an atheist should find convincing. What he claims is that his argument is sound in the technical sense, and that in virtue of it's soundness it counts as a proof.

Now, apply your debate framework to his claim. In a Toulmin analysis this looks like Claim: Butte's argument is a proof. Ground: Butte's argument is sound. Warrant: All sound arguments are proofs. Now, you can only undermine his argument by refuting his ground or undermining his warrant. I can assure you that his argument is sound in the relevant sense. That means you have to undermine his warrant.

Remember, the issue here is not whether there is a god. The issue is whether Butte's argument is a proof.

 

[Xaositecte]

Which brings me back to:

"1. If something exists, then there is no god
2. Something Exists
------------
3. There is no god. "

Which is just as Valid and Sound as it's opposite.