Proof of God

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The only "proof" so presented is this

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

without further expansion. Considering your difficultly with

If P then Q
Q
then P

only yesterday, i am, shall we say sceptical that you fully understand the notation. Perhaps you could explain how this amounts to a proof.

The rest of the post - there is no further proof presented.

ETA

Excellent post by Wolfman - I agree entirely.

1. I compiled that argument so obviously I know the notation.

2.That one argument is an example of a "logical" proof of God opposed to a proof in other contexts which equal 'evidence'.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Nope.

For all formal work, science uses mathematics.

Explain to me Darwin's theory of Evolution using no words.

Good grief, Dustin. Are you incapable of understanding this?

Are you proposing a formal proof, deductive and conclusive, and impossible?

Or merely evidence, which is just non-existent?

I'm afraid I am incapable of understanding anything you're requesting.

No, not that nonsense. Your "proof" that God exists.

There's more than one in the OP.

Your OP is a 7000-word collection of logical fallacies.

What fallacies? Be specific.

Which bit of it?

The entire thing. All of it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Explain to me Darwin's theory of Evolution using no words.

That would involve rather a lot of equations, Dustin. You do it.

I'm afraid I am incapable of understanding anything you're requesting.

I noticed this.

Are you claiming a formal proof, or just evidence?

There's more than one in the OP.

Whatever. Which of these "proofs" convinced you? Would it not be more valuable to focus on it?

What fallacies? Be specific.

In your own words: The entire thing. All of it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That would involve rather a lot of equations, Dustin. You do it.

NO can do. It's impossible.

I noticed this.

Are you claiming a formal proof, or just evidence?

Both.

Whatever. Which of these "proofs" convinced you? Would it not be more valuable to focus on it?

All of them did.

In your own words: The entire thing. All of it.

Be more specific. In my post each argument rests upon the other arguments and you can't comprehend one of them without the entire framework of the others and the introduction. That's why I can't cut out one single piece of it for you. However if you claim I have committed multiple fallacies then please provide an example of one of them. Just one.

 

[andyandy]

1. I compiled that argument so obviously I know the notation.

.

No - not obviously. You're likely simply restating the argument you'd heard given in words elsewhere.


Explain how you've graduated from failing to understand the most basic of logical fallacious deductions....

If P then Q
Q
Then P

to

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

in a little over 24 hours

Because without further proof, I'd have to conclude you're lying.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No - not obviously. You're likely simply restating the argument you'd heard given in words elsewhere.


Explain how you've graduated from failing to understand the most basic of logical fallacious deductions....

If P then Q
Q
Then P

to

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

in a little over 24 hours

Because without further proof, I'd have to conclude you're lying.

The affirming the Consequent fallacy I made the other day was a simple error which I quickly corrected upon notification. Sort of like 'mispelling' a word and then noticing that it's misspelled. Moreover, I'm a fast learner.

 

[PixyMisa]

The affirming the Consequent fallacy I made the other day was a simple error which I quickly corrected upon notification.

Wow. That has got to be nominated for... something.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wow. That has got to be nominated for... something.

Do you ever make errors? Misspell words? Misstate things? I've read your posts and you do on a regular basis.

 

[PixyMisa]

That was not my point.

 

[andyandy]

The affirming the Consequent fallacy I made the other day was a simple error which I quickly corrected upon notification. Sort of like 'mispelling' a word and then noticing that it's misspelled. Moreover, I'm a fast learner.

LOL

In your premise you make this statement

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

and then you use this to conclude that God (N) exists.

You've simply assumed your conclusion in your premise.

here is your argument.

If God is omnipresent then he exists somewhere.
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists

This is not a proof.

and you still haven't explained the notation - so i still don't believe you understand it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

LOL

In your premise you make this statement

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

and then you use this to conclude that God (N) exists.

You've simply assumed your conclusion in your premise.

This is not a proof.

here is your argument.

God is omnipresent
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists

and you still haven't explained the notation - so i still don't believe you understand it.

You cut one tiny fraction out of the end of my argument and then concluded that was my entire argument.

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

is only the end of that one argument. Of course that's not an a valid argument in itself! You cut 90% out of it.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

iff= if and only if.

◘= necessity.

├= inference.

┬= truth

↔= equals

¬= false.

This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well. N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world. Such contingent propositions rely on plenitudes that which lead us to the logical conclusion that the property of being God is illustrated.

 

[PixyMisa]

Let's take a few more pieces, trimming out most the foliage so we can focus on the, uh, "good" bits:

So far I have proven that the individual (I) exists and possibly a God.

Cogito ergo sum is a proof of self existence. All other things that are not internally contradictory are possible, but you can't say anything about them one way or another without evidence. So you have not proven that "possibly a God" exists.

If our experiences of the world around us originates from our own minds then they must have a cause thereof.

Why? Does this also apply to God? What if my unconscious mind is God? (Better let myself sleep in, then...)

That cause could not have been ourselves because then we face the regress problem and are forced to come to the conclusion that the cause of our experiences are outside of our own minds.

Nope.

You don't know the nature of the unconscious mind. Maybe there were always trees in it. Maybe it is a tree. You simply cannot make such a statement.

If Descartes demon exists then it must have a motivation for deceiving us. If it has a motivation for tricking us then that motivation must have an origin and that motivations origin must have an origin and so on and so forth.

Maybe Descarte's demon is also a tree?

It must also be working within a universe that physically allows it to deceive us.

Not if it's a tree.

Alas, you are doomed to solipsistic misery.

 

[andyandy]

You cut one tiny fraction out of the end of my argument and then concluded that was my entire argument.



is only the end of that one argument. Of course that's not an a valid argument in itself! You cut 90% out of it.

The rest of your "proof" is nothing of the sort

This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition.

So N is God. For some reason we assume that both a necessary and sufficient condition for "God" is that N has "positive property"

that means we assume that if we prove "positive property" we prove "God." A bizare notion, but let's see where this is going.

Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well.

An attempt to prove "postive property" by first assuming that God is positive

N is positive
Therefore its negation would be negative
Therefore God has positive property

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

If God is omnipresent then he exists somewhere.
Therefore God is omnipresent
Therefore God exists

the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.

In summary;

"positive property" is necessary and sufficient for "God"
We assume God is positive, therefore God has positive property
We assume God is omnipresent therefore God exists.

Therefore God does exist and must exist.

utter tosh.

 

[PixyMisa]

N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N

iff= if and only if.

◘= necessity.

├= inference.

┬= truth

↔= equals

¬= false.

This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph.

N is god-like if it is omni-X.

Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context.

Postulate: N is god if I say so.

Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'.

Uh, what? What's B?

This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative.

We can probably accept that part.

Since N=God

Uh, isn't that what you're trying to prove?

therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’.

Where? Why? That's the first time you mentioned existence.

This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God.

Yeah, well.

Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well.

Waiting...

N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world.

That's incoherent. Try again.

Such contingent propositions rely on plenitudes that which lead us to the logical conclusion that the property of being God is illustrated.

Nope.

 

[PixyMisa]

utter tosh.

Concise. Elegant. A 9.5.

 

[Mid]

could any one summarise the op in a way that minimises verbosity? I keep on getting to the 2nd paragraph and my eyes glaze over

 

[andyandy]

could any one summarise the op in a way that minimises verbosity? I keep on getting to the 2nd paragraph and my eyes glaze over

"I believe in God
I am never wrong
Therefore I possess only positive property
Positive property is a sufficient condition for God
therefore God exists
I am God"

 

[PixyMisa]

I think everyone's eyes must have glazed over before they reached this bit (I was just idly scrolling through, and it jumped out and bit me):

All of the scientific method rests on the idea of a pragmatic epistemological worldview. If we were to do scientific tests to confirm or deny a specific phenomena and we didn’t truly believe that there was even a “world” outside of our sense then none of our tests would mean anything. In order for science to work we must be practical and posit such entities otherwise any attempts to measure or deduce them would result in utter failure.

Yes, Dustin is saying that science only works if you believe in it.

 

[Zep]

Rhymes with "banker".