A proof that there is a God.

[wesmorris]

then a believer might very well offer the following as a proof that there is a God

- emphasis added by wes

As has been said a number of times throughout this thread, the offered premise is faulty because it leads directly to a circular proof. If a proof is devised to prove that which is already assumed, how have you not gone in a complete circle.

1) I believe (in god)
2) If something exists, then there is a God.
3) Something exists.
4) (I believe (based on this proof)) There is a God.

1->2
2->3
3->4
4->1

As has been demonstrated several times, the argument is invalid. I fail to see why you claim otherwise.

 

[TheNatMan]

OMFG. i am going to put an end to this horribly irrational and idiotic discussion right now. This is so hideously inane that it is a wonder it has had so many replies. It should have ended with one. Writing this post is a waste of my time, as was responding to Butte's original for all of you, and actually trying to explain this, and horribly failing, for Butte. Think of all the hours that you have wasted on this. seriously. In the beginning of 8th grade geometry, i learned about the law of syllogism. This creates two statements, linked logically, that produce a result.
All men have penises (by definiton)
i am a man
therefore i have a penis.
Judging by Butte's responses, i am thoroughly convinced that this is the only education that he has had in this matter. that is 8th grade geometry. His argument:
Originally posted by Butte Montana
1. If something exists, then there is a God.
2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.
Goes against so many logical principles that he, with his 8th grade mathematical education, has yet to learn (begging the question, circular reasoning, etc. ) . Look at the first statement. This does NOT draw a logical conclusion from the first part of the statement. If something exists, it must have been created, but there is no proof that the thing that created it was God. It could have been a space alien, or another person. Or it could have been born out of a chemical reaction. It sickens me that this thread has gone on so long, and its even worse that no one has been able to stop this horribly logic-challenged 8th grader, fresh out of geometry class and out of school for the summer. My advice to Butte: go color in your coloring books. and to everyone else: don't waste your time replying to such posts, it only encourages him.

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by TheNatMan
OMFG. i am going to put an end to this horribly irrational and idiotic discussion right now. This is so hideously inane that it is a wonder it has had so many replies. It should have ended with one. Writing this post is a waste of my time, as was responding to Butte's original for all of you, and actually trying to explain this, and horribly failing, for Butte. Think of all the hours that you have wasted on this. seriously. In the beginning of 8th grade geometry, i learned about the law of syllogism. This creates two statements, linked logically, that produce a result.
All men have penises (by definiton)
i am a man
therefore i have a penis.
Judging by Butte's responses, i am thoroughly convinced that this is the only education that he has had in this matter. that is 8th grade geometry. His argument:
Originally posted by Butte Montana
1. If something exists, then there is a God.
2. Something exists.
----
3. There is a God.
Goes against so many logical principles that he, with his 8th grade mathematical education, has yet to learn (begging the question, circular reasoning, etc. ) . Look at the first statement. This does NOT draw a logical conclusion from the first part of the statement. If something exists, it must have been created, but there is no proof that the thing that created it was God. It could have been a space alien, or another person. Or it could have been born out of a chemical reaction. It sickens me that this thread has gone on so long, and its even worse that no one has been able to stop this horribly logic-challenged 8th grader, fresh out of geometry class and out of school for the summer. My advice to Butte: go color in your coloring books. and to everyone else: don't waste your time replying to such posts, it only encourages him.

Have you ever had a logic course in your life? Have you bothered to read the thread? Did you understand it? Or were you too busy being offended?

Butte's "proof" has problems. But they aren't problems with his logic. They are problems in the concept of proof. Heaping invective on him for imagined flaws only makes you look like an idiot. If you have something to actually contribute to the discussion, then by all meanse do so. But given the gross misunderstanding of logic shown in your post, I suggest you refrain from throwing stones until you move out of that glass house you're living in.

 

[Joltpenguin]

Proving that nothing exists

Originally posted by 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.

I plan to do just that...

IMNSHO existence is a major flaw in the world as it is. Your perception of yourself as you look into a mirror and the perception of the mirror and of the floor beneath you is all perceived through your brain and it would be stupid to say otherwise. Whereas another person may perceive that object differently. A person you may perceive as mentally ill, but they may perceive themselves as normal and may or may not perceive you as different. To go into a phase of paradox, you can only have one true reality (not two or more as your perception and somebody elses perception would suggest) and if there is more than one reality there is no reality because a reality would be real for both people. If you are going with the second definition of "reality" from dictionary.com.

"re·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
The quality or state of being actual or true.
:m: One, :m: such as a person, an entity, or an
event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political
realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.). "

Please contact me if you would like to discuss this problem further, as I know it is not perfectly worded and may confuse some of you.

 

[TheNatMan]

log·i·cal __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(lj-kl)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.

There is a conflict in the very DEFINITION of logical. The statement "1. If something exists, then there is a God." is not known, because theists are unable to explain scientifically why God exists. If you can make up another proof as to why the fact that something is created has anything to do with the fact that God created it, then be my guest. And the conclusion is based on the assumption in the first statement that God created this thing. Thus it is a circular agument. It is an uncontrolled study if you will, in that there could be many things that created this thing. Just because i didnt use the word "premise" (as many of you have been so keen to do to show your understanding of what one is. my apologies to Xaositecte, Mystech, and wesmorris) and "idiosyncratic" (which was not correctly used...it means "peculiar")doesnt mean that i dont understand logic. You have been skirting around this very simple issue (we all know this proof is tragically flawed), with big words , but really, why use the big words when smaller, simpler ones will do, if not to show off your vocabulary in an attempt to make your argument seem more valid. I was frustrated because very simply, every one of us knows this is false, and it has taken 80 something posts (that i HAVE read) to go way too in depth on this very simple issue. And also, i recognize that his definition of "proof" is flawed. We have established that. Lets move on. Lets go have tea parties and enjoy life. And another thing: ive changed my mind. Butte is not an 8th grader at all. he is just fucking with all of you. He knows that his proof is false, but wanted to see how long this thread could go on. If this is the case, then kudos to Butte.

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by TheNatMan
There is a conflict in the very DEFINITION of logical. The statement "1. If something exists, then there is a God." is not known, because theists are unable to explain scientifically why God exists. If you can make up another proof as to why the fact that something is created has anything to do with the fact that God created it, then be my guest. And the conclusion is based on the assumption in the first statement that God created this thing. Thus it is a circular agument. It is an uncontrolled study if you will, in that there could be many things that created this thing. Just because i didnt use the word "premise" (as many of you have been so keen to do to show your understanding of what one is. my apologies to Xaositecte, Mystech, and wesmorris) and "idiosyncratic" (which was not correctly used...it means "peculiar")doesnt mean that i dont understand logic. You have been skirting around this very simple issue (we all know this proof is tragically flawed), with big words , but really, why use the big words when smaller, simpler ones will do, if not to show off your vocabulary in an attempt to make your argument seem more valid. I was frustrated because very simply, every one of us knows this is false, and it has taken 80 something posts (that i HAVE read) to go way too in depth on this very simple issue. And also, i recognize that his definition of "proof" is flawed. We have established that. Lets move on. Lets go have tea parties and enjoy life. And another thing: ive changed my mind. Butte is not an 8th grader at all. he is just fucking with all of you. He knows that his proof is false, but wanted to see how long this thread could go on. If this is the case, then kudos to Butte.

As I suspected, never taken a logic class, clueless about what Butte's point is, but would rather deride than understand. And yes, you don't understand logic. That doesn't mean you don't do a pretty good job of reasoning in general, it means that you don't have any idea what the issues are in the study of logic.

For example, Butte's proof says nothing about God being a creator. Yet you go on and on about this being related to the flaw. There is not flaw in the logic of Butte's argument. There is a flaw in his labelling the argument a proof, but this has to do with rhetorical and methodological points, not logical ones.

If you think this is all a waste of time, then why are you bothering with it?

 

[TheNatMan]

The first statement:1. If something exists, then there is a God generally implies that this God figure created it. This is common sense, which i suppose is what i am going on about. No, i havent taken a logic class, but common sense kicks in first. I realize what you all are blabbering on about (and it is blabbering), these "rhetorical" and "methodological" points, but all along, Butte has maintained that this is an issue of "a proof " versus "a proof to YOU". that takes rhetoric out of the way. AND, methodology is a branch of logic. You should stick to the basics when you write things. Try 3 and 4 letter words. because you dont seem to do well with the longer ones.

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by TheNatMan
The first statement:1. If something exists, then there is a God generally implies that this God figure created it. This is common sense, which i suppose is what i am going on about.

No. The first premise does not imply that God created it. Try looking up "material conditional" and trying to learn a bit.

No, i havent taken a logic class, but common sense kicks in first.

Ah, so it's YOU who don't know any logic beyond what you got in 8th grade geometry, and probably didn't do so well in that. Yet you have the audacity to go blubbering around at others about how little they know.

I realize what you all are blabbering on about (and it is blabbering), these "rhetorical" and "methodological" points, but all along, Butte has maintained that this is an issue of "a proof " versus "a proof to YOU". that takes rhetoric out of the way. AND, methodology is a branch of logic.

You have this precisely backwards. It is precisely because of the proof/proof to you distinction that this is a matter of rhetoric and not logic. Further, methodolody is definitely not a branch of logic.

You should stick to the basics when you write things. Try 3 and 4 letter words. because you dont seem to do well with the longer ones.

I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding what other people say. Perhaps if you would stop assuming that you know it all and start reading, then you'll do better at following the thread. So far you've spent your time accusing others of the very things of which you are guilty, and then going on to tell them that they are wasting their time. If you would focus some of the energy you spend in deriding others on actually trying to increase your own knowledge, you might find things a bit less disturbing and confusing.

 

[wesmorris]

Okay drnihili, maybe you can explain it to me in terms of logic. How is the first line of his logic valid?

He offers:

If something exists, there is a god.

For that to be true, it should be representative of a known relationship or a given fact somewhere.

"If something exists" doesn't necessarily mean that there "is a god". Thusly for his statement to be logically valid, wouldn't there neccessarily have to be a god for something to exist? This statement in and of itself would REQUIRE a proof (which is offered only in the form that 'a believer might offer this argument') to back it up right? As such, doesn't that mean that there IS a problem with his logic in that for it to seem valid it asks that you ignore that it is circular? Please explain.

 

[TheNatMan]

"You have this precisely backwards. It is precisely because of the proof/proof to you distinction that this is a matter of rhetoric and not logic. Further, methodolody is definitely not a branch of logic."

meth·od·ol·o·gy __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(mth-dl-j)
n. pl. meth·od·ol·o·gies
1. a. A body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods: the methodology of genetic studies; a poll marred by faulty methodology.
b. The study or theoretical analysis of such working methods.
2. The branch of logic that deals with the general principles of the formation of knowledge.

!!!! do my eyes deceive me?!?!?! how can this be! Either the dictionary is wrong, or Drnihili is...hmm...based on his track record with words (see "idiosyncratic"), i would have to choose the dictionary. And what i was saying about the rhetoric is that Butte himself has denied that this is a matter of rhetoric. Maybe its time for another definition here:

rhet·o·ric __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(rtr-k)
n.
1. a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.

Why would he need to use language persuasively if his point is that it is a proof and not a "proof to you"? wouldnt a "proof to you" be rhetoric? Yes? so that means that he is personally dismissing the notion that it is an argument of rhetoric. And about my education in logic, i was saying that i have read up on logical principles beyond what i learned in 8th grade, online and in books. That is why my education is not that limited. I was saying that more to make my point that this is a simple logical issue, as stated by Butte, that is being blown out of proportion. And i have read every thread posted, twice actually. It was painful to my eyes. I didn't learn anything yet, as there was so much BS tossed about (especially from your corner of the ring) that its hard to discern which threads are legitimate. perhaps a 3rd reading will tell me that.

 

[TheNatMan]

WHOA! wait a minute. Surfing through your other posts, i found this in the "mathematical proof that God exists" thread, DrNihili:

Originally posted by drnihili
98 percent of this thread is worthless. But on the subject of mathematical proofs of god, you might take a look at Godel's.

Maybe you should practice what you preach, and learn from people, rather than saying they're all stupid. and I'M THE HYPOCRITE?!?!?!?

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Okay drnihili, maybe you can explain it to me in terms of logic. How is the first line of his logic valid?

He offers:

If something exists, there is a god.

For that to be true, it should be representative of a known relationship or a given fact somewhere.

The first line isn't valid, the argument is valid. "Valid" simply means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. It has nothing to do whether whether the premises are true or justified.

You are correct that the premise has not been justified. You're correct to ask that it be justified. But all that goes beyond the scope of Butte's primary claim. His primary claim is that the argument is valid. He is correct in that claim. His secondary claim is that a proof is nothing more than a valid argument. That is the claim where he is wrong, however it's not a matter of logic but rather of semantics.

If Butte had claimed that his first premise was logically true, then he would have potentially made a logical error. (Something is logically true if it is implied by the laws of logic.) But he didn't claim that. He just claimed that the premise was true. Whether a sentence is true or false is not typically a matter for logic to decide. Logic is only concerned with which sentences follow from which others.

[caveat: I'm ignoring some issues in logical theory here in the interests of simplicity.]

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by TheNatMan
[B!!!! do my eyes deceive me?!?!?! how can this be! Either the dictionary is wrong, or Drnihili is...hmm...based on his track record with words (see "idiosyncratic"), i would have to choose the dictionary. And what i was saying about the rhetoric is that Butte himself has denied that this is a matter of rhetoric. Maybe its time for another definition here:

Yep, the dictionary is wrong. That happens a lot actually. The people who write dictionaries are not experts in the fields of study. As a result errors creep in. The dictionary may or may not have been wrong about idiosyncratic. Since you didn't post the definition, I can't tell whether the fault iw with the dictionary or your interpretation of it.

Why would he need to use language persuasively if his point is that it is a proof and not a "proof to you"? wouldnt a "proof to you" be rhetoric? Yes? so that means that he is personally dismissing the notion that it is an argument of rhetoric. And about my education in logic, i was saying that i have read up on logical principles beyond what i learned in 8th grade, online and in books. That is why my education is not that limited. I was saying that more to make my point that this is a simple logical issue, as stated by Butte, that is being blown out of proportion. And i have read every thread posted, twice actually. It was painful to my eyes. I didn't learn anything yet, as there was so much BS tossed about (especially from your corner of the ring) that its hard to discern which threads are legitimate. perhaps a 3rd reading will tell me that. [/B]

In case you haven't figured it out, a dictionary is only a first step into understanding the meanings of words.

So, which books on logical principles have you studied? And what evidence do you have that you understood them?

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by TheNatMan
WHOA! wait a minute. Surfing through your other posts, i found this in the "mathematical proof that God exists" thread, DrNihili:


Maybe you should practice what you preach, and learn from people, rather than saying they're all stupid. and I'M THE HYPOCRITE?!?!?!?

Where do you see me not practicing what I preach? Unless you're assuming that me reference to Goedel was useles, you give no basis. If that's the problem, the perhaps you would care to explain why you think Goedels proof is not relevant to that thread?

 

[TheNatMan]

it was the 98% of this thread is useless that i was finding hypocritical, because that is essentially what i said. as to your other questions, im going to do what my mother told me to do when my brother was pestering me--"just ignore him. he'll get the point sooner or later."

 

[drnihili]

Originally posted by TheNatMan
it was the 98% of this thread is useless that i was finding hypocritical, because that is essentially what i said. as to your other questions, im going to do what my mother told me to do when my brother was pestering me--"just ignore him. he'll get the point sooner or later."

No, that's not what you said. You made specific allegations against an individual in a derisive tone. You accused them of only having an 8th grade understanding of logic while you yourself demonstrated no better. You then misrepresented his argument and went on to claim that it violated rules that it in fact does not. You insulted his intelligence and his integrity by saying on the one hand that he should go back to his coloring books and on the other he was probably being insincere. You have offered not the slightest shred of evidence for these accusations.

The day you find me doing that, let me know. In the meantime, I am pleased that you are intent on following your mother's advice. I suspect it will serve you better than your own.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by drnihili
The first line isn't valid, the argument is valid. "Valid" simply means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. It has nothing to do whether whether the premises are true or justified.

It just seems counterintuitive I suppose that you can accurately label an argument valid when its premises clearly are not. I say that because it seems that an argument that is correct, or logically valid.. all of its parts should be valid.

I get it now, running a little slow. I didn't see the first line as assertive, I saw it as conditional, inclusive of assumptions (as it is generally used conversationally). Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me.

I see the advantage, if you are assertive rather than conditional... the structure of the words becomes a tool for processing. Man it's been a long time since I thought about that directly.. wow. As such you gain an objective logical tool which cannot be denied. As you said the output is as valid as the inputs. I see. Thanks.

 

[man on the hill]

I think you all have taken a simple subject and made it too complicated. I knew even from the thread title that he wasn't going to be able to prove that there was a god. simple as that

 

[Tom2]

Originally posted by wesmorris
It just seems counterintuitive I suppose that you can accurately label an argument valid when its premises clearly are not. I say that because it seems that an argument that is correct, or logically valid.. all of its parts should be valid.

The confusion arises due to the fact that the word "valid" is being used in a specialized way that differs from colloquial uses of the term.

An argument schema said to be valid if the truth of the premises necessarily implies the truth of the conclusion. It has nothing to do with whether or not the premises are actually true. Also, according to this definition, it makes no sense to refer to a statement as "valid". Validity is found in the relationship between premises and their conclusion, and so we cannot say that a single statement is valid. Rather, statements have truth values, which are T or F in this logic.