A proof that there is a God.

Sorry for butting in late. I followed drnihili here, whom I noticed in the Physics and Math forum. I haven't read the whole thing, but skimming through the topic I haven't seen anything about truth-functional propositions (specifically material implication), which is really the fundamental issue here.

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

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.
Click to expand...

This argument is indeed deductively valid and noncircular, but the soundness is far from established, because the truth of Premise 1 is not established.

Premise 1 is of the form

p-->q, or "If p then q." This structure has the following truth table:

Code: 
p   q   p-->q
T   T      T
T   F      F
F   T      T
F   F      T

If we ignore the "nihilist" objection and grant the truth of the antecedent term (p), the truth of the consequent term (q) still needs to be established in order to determine the truth of the premise.
 
Originally posted by 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.
Click to expand...

It is just as valid. It cannot be just as sound. Only one of the two arguments can be sound because of our definition. Our definition implies that sound arguments must have true conclusions.

Butte has to admit that if it turns out that there is no god, your argument is a proof and his is not. His position is that exactly one of the two arguments is a proof (he claims it's his argument). I take it that you would agree with me that neither argument is a proof.
 
Originally posted by Tom2
the truth of the consequent term (q) still needs to be established in order to determine the truth of the premise.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said 'ceptin it's fancier.
 
Umm, this is all a bit confusing.

The argument does not appear valid to me.
Premise 1: "If something exists, then there is a God." has not been proven. Actually, it is quite illogical. Where is the connection between something existing and the existence of a God? The arguer has failed to explain the connection between the two.

If that argument is valid, what about this one?

1. If something exists, then there is no God.

2. Something exists.

3. There is no God.
 
Originally posted by mountainhare
The argument does not appear valid to me.
Premise 1: "If something exists, then there is a God." has not been proven. Actually, it is quite illogical. Where is the connection between something existing and the existence of a God? The arguer has failed to explain the connection between the two.

If that argument is valid, what about this one?

1. If something exists, then there is no God.

2. Something exists.

3. There is no God.
Click to expand...

Both arguments are valid. That said, let's clear up something: valid here means deductively valid, not that the premises or conclusion are true. When we say "valid" we are referring only to the structure of the argument, not the content. Both arguments (yours and the first one) have identical structures:

1. p-->q (Premise)
2. p (Premise)
3. Therefore q (Conclusion)

That is what we refer to when we say the argument is "valid". An argument is valid if the truth of the premises necessarily implies the truth of the conlcusion.

Establishing the truth of the premises is another matter entirely.
 
Tom's right. An unproven premise leads to a conclusion of conjecture.
Most notably, the actual existence of things is questionable. And that's why arguments which try to show that
things can only be known as abstract thoughts, are the correct way to proceed in philosophical pursuit of 'reality'.
 
Originally posted by 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.
Click to expand...

We exist. We were created in God's image through evolution. Therefore, God exists in us and we in God.
 
Your argument is perfectly valid... however the 'soundness' is debatable. Unless you somehow show your premises to be true, it doesn't 'prove' your conclusion.
 
Originally posted by Persol
Your argument is perfectly valid... however the 'soundness' is debatable. Unless you somehow show your premises to be true, it doesn't 'prove' your conclusion.
Click to expand...
There are very few sound premises that are absolutely true. Mathematics is true unto itself, but doesn't tell us anything about reality. However, humankind shares experience, gleaned from sensation.
We see, we think, we feel... are the only absolutes. What we see, think and feel, is conjecture.
 
Life, you are correct. And, as you said, it is possible to convience someone that a premise is true based on shared experiences (even if those experiences are conjecture) and common thought processes.

This is just avoiding the main point though. His first premise has not been shown to stand on its own.
 
Originally posted by Persol
Life, you are correct. And, as you said, it is possible to convience someone that a premise is true based on shared experiences (even if those experiences are conjecture) and common thought processes.
Click to expand...
Thankyou. So why is materialism seen as sensible?
This is just avoiding the main point though. His first premise has not been shown to stand on its own.
Click to expand...
True. But this specific discussion is a Dodo... and I was just trying to get everyone on the right track towards future meaningful debate.
 
Originally posted by lifegazer
Thankyou. So why is materialism seen as sensible?
To take a stab at it, I would have to say that it is thought to lead to social interaction and status. (Neglecting things that are obviously useful as not being materialistic.) I'd have to argue about how 'sensible' materialism is seen too be. It seems more like suppliers try and shift items from the 'materialistic' to the 'need' category... and people simply believe it.

To be honest, I'm not sure where this can go because I'm not sure how you'd define sensible without relating it back to perception.


But this specific discussion is a Dodo...
Agreed.
 
All proofs are a proofs to someone who accepts the premises.

So in this case, if that person accepts the premise that the existence of anything implies God, and that things exist, then the syllogism will prove to that person that there is a God.

If someone does not accept the premises, then it does not prove that there is a God to that person.

Therefore the proof is only valid to people who don't need it.
Valid? Yes
Useful? No
 
Originally posted by Butte Montana

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

2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.
Click to expand...

You need a proof that statement number one is true. If you can prove statement one is true, I will convert myself.

The general approach might be:
A => B, B => C, C => D.
A would be "something exists."... ending with D, which is "there is a God."
You can then conclude A => D.

James Sibley
 
Last edited:
ahem... no, I'm afraid you based your proof on the wrong idea. Who knows if something exists. you might be the creation of your own imagination. well you never know there are infinte possibilities. and you have to clearly define what "god" means to you. is it a powerful energy or the guy in the Bible?
 
Perhaps Butte is gone. We probably scared him off, showing the flaw in his reasoning. Maybe he is under a new user name :p

James Sibley
 
4DHyperCubix, wesmorris,

Oh I am around-- there just hasn't been anything to say, that hasn't already been said.

Your self-evaluation is misguided and nothing more than empty self-flattery. It has not been necessary to respond, since no significant objections to my proof have been presented. drnihili has understood this, and has ably offered (at 06-22-03 at 04:40 PM, 06-22-03 at 04:50 PM, 06-22-03 at 09:19 PM, 06-22-03 at 10:22 PM) the responses that I would have offered if he/she had not.

I have offered what I have called a proof for the existence of God and I have made it clear, in the opening post, what I mean by "proof" (sound argument). Many of the objections have been nothing more than expressions of "you haven't convinced me", which show nothing about the soundness/unsoundness of my argument. Often respondents contend that I must prove one premise or the other-- but they don't say exactly why I must do this. The premises are true (or false), whether or not any one here believes they are true (or false), and the argument is valid whether or not anyone here believes it is valid. Hence the argument is sound (or unsound) whether or not anyone believes it is sound (unsound).

Of course, if I were to claim to prove that the proof that God exists is a proof, I would have to prove that the conditions on proof have been satisfied. That is, prove that the two premises are each true and prove that the argument is valid. But that is an entriely different line of argumentation, and I have not claimed to have done this.

But, similarly, if you want to prove that the argument is not a proof, then you must prove that one or the other (or both) of the presmises is false and/or that the argument is invalid. OR, you must show that the notion of proof that I have employed is mistaken in some signifcant way. The mere fact that you, individually, are not convinced by the proof is not obviously a flaw in the proof.

Many of you think that I am not entitled to claim that the argument is a proof unless I have proved that it is a proof. Well then, you are not entitled to claim that it isn't a proof unless you prove that it isn't-- show that one or the other or the premises (or both) is false, and/or that the argument is invalid.

One of you, drnihili, has seen that the primary point of this thread has been to focus discussion on the notion of proof. What has emerged is that the rest of you have no clear idea of what a proof is, and cannot keep, "It has not been proved" separate from "I am not convinced". This latter confusion is a significant one in that it underlies the belief by many amateur thinkers that philosophy never gets anywhere.



4DHyperCubix,

You 'objection' in your recent post has already been addressed by me and again by drnihili in one of the posts mentioned by date above. Why don't you read over the thread before you try again-- you might save yourself some time/effort.



Butte Montana
 
Originally posted by Butte Montana
4DHyperCubix,

You 'objection' in your recent post has already been addressed by me and again by drnihili in one of the posts mentioned by date above. Why don't you read over the thread before you try again-- you might save yourself some time/effort.
Click to expand...

I do read the stuff. However, I do not see how what I say will hurt anything. If you do not want to read it, you do not have to. I am not affected one bit. Good day :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top