From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

[irichc]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth (vid. 3), it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Theological Miscellany (in spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ok, so here is a truth: I just drank from a cup. Could you show how that leads to God?

 

[rebecca]

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

Welcome to the forum.

So if you think that the "supreme and unattainable Truth" is God, what's the point of saying "there is no god?" Seems pretty silly, to me.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Truth = God?

Fine, if you have that as your premise and conclusion, you are right. Circular, but right.

But if God doesn't exist he is not Truth but Falsehood. And thusly you can't have God = Truth as your premise.

 

[evildave]

Doesn't Truth = Black?

It follows that my font is black as I type this, therefore truth, printed in this font is black.

 

[Yahweh]

It seems to me P2 redefines "the unknowable" by the name of "God". This is entirely unrelated to the typical theistic concept of God (which is a supreme creator being who regularly interacts with its creation).

This kind of "God" only exists in the philosphical sense, and concept itself is in reality atheistic.

 

[Yahweh]

And welcome to the forum, Daniel

 

[Ceinwyn]

1) Every Cake leads to another Cake. Otherwise, Cake's limit would be a non-Cake, in which Cake is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2)Thus, every Cake, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Cake, which is Betty Crocker.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really Cake, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of Cakes and, consequently, recognizing Betty Crocker's existence (vid. 2).

4)So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "Betty Crocker doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a Cake (vid. 3), it follows that Betty Crocker (i.e. the Cake, vid. 2) exists.

5)However, if Betty Crocker exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if Betty Crocker doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Cake (i.e. Betty Crocker, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single Cakes wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, Betty Crocker exists.

Hi Daniel. Welcome to the forums.

 

[triadboy]

1) Every truth leads to another one.

I was always taught not to be so absolute.

 

[Beleth]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end.

Welcome, Daniel.

If every truth leads to another one, then how can the phrase "truth's limit" have any meaning?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Doesn't Truth = Black?

It follows that my font is black as I type this, therefore truth, printed in this font is black.

Actually no. I have set my browser to display red text on black background so what is true to you is not true to me.

Therefore truth is subjective.

 

[Iacchus]

1) Every truth leads to another one.

This is absolutely true in the case with mathematics. So, what does it all add up to? Is that to say an ultimate truth does exist?

 

[Keneke]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

Vague, but possibly true in a very feel-good sense. Can you provide specific examples?

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

I see fallacies.

1. Assume God is a universal truth. A universal truth, then, is automatically God? Is the subset of universal truths all in the God set?

2. Can universal truths not exist without a sentient God?

3. Do universal truths even exist?

So P3 through P5 come from assuming P1 and P2 are correct. Getting over those first two humps are doozies though.

Welcome!

 

[irichc]

Hi there.

Thanks for your welcome.

Proving 1).

Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.

We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.

So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.


Proving 2).

I.

In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.

If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that “the truth is the truth”, since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.

II.

1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.

1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.

1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.

1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.

1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

1.2.2. If it has not a frist Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.


The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.

Greetings.

Daniel.

 

[irichc]

Re: Re: From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

So if you think that the "supreme and unattainable Truth" is God, what's the point of saying "there is no god?" Seems pretty silly, to me.

Hi Rebecca. I like your eyes.

Then you understand why I find the atheist so silly. If you accept there's a self-subsistent, unique and unlimited Truth, I don't care if you call it "God", "Betty Crocker" or "Gibblefritzes": Christians call it God.

However, we can ask ourselves: is this Truth also a Mind? The answer is yes. Since nothing is without an activity, ideas (single truths) won't be possible without a Supreme Intellect that possessed -not created- them and thought them eternally.

Greetings.

Daniel.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Hi there.

Thanks for your welcome.

Proving 1).

Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.

We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.

So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.


Proving 2).

I.

In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.

If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that “the truth is the truth”, since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.

II.

1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.

1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.

1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.

1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.

1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

1.2.2. If it has not a frist Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.


The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Hi, Daniel.

Right to the point here.

1. Existence is not determined by logical reasoning, but by evidence. This is why science is much better at determining it than reason or logic alone.

2. Numbers are not truths. They are abstract representations of cardinal counting under a particular radix. A progression of numbers is given by a simple deductive process. Thus, there is an axiomatic truth to the process (that is: [n]+1 = [n+1] in simplistic terms).

3. Actually, according to Goedel's Theorem, Proposition VI:

To every w-consistent recursive class c of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v-Gen-r nor Neg(v-Gen-r) belongs to Flg(c) (where v is the free variable of r and Flg(c) is the smallest set of formulae of c and all axioms).

Thus, that any formal system has an infinite number of true statements while also being shown to have undecidable statements (neither markedly true nor false) has been demonstrated. Therefore, the number of true statements is infinite and is not 'limited' by any one false (or undecidable; i.e. non-true) statements.

4. Basing God on axiomatic premises is useless since God cannot be demonstrated to be axiomatic (see 1.). Basing God's existence on arithmetic logic puzzles is just plain silly. As was shown, you could base the existence of ANYTHING on such logical steps.

Tautalogies and circular reasoning avaunt!

Kuroyume

 

[Keneke]

Hi there.

Thanks for your welcome.

Anytime!

Proving 1).

So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.

Yet the opposite is not true. If you are given a set of untrue statements, changing one statement to a truth will not make every statement true almost all the time. Therefore false propositions do not lead to true ones, therefore P1 is unproven.

...indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

Agreed. Even after the last human dies, 1 will still equal 1.

NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.

The existence of such a supreme truth is still suspect, and therefore unable to be used in a logic problem. What if there is no supreme truth? What if, after all the truths were collected together and summarized, existence and all its truisms simply were?

1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.

1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.

You are using a fallacy I mentioned in my first post:

God == Truth, but
Truth =/= God.

1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.

Again, you are using a statement that I question in my last email. Namely, do universal, ultimate truths even exist? In an infinite set of truths, is one bigger and better than the rest?

Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

This is some shaky ground. God doesn't need a logic demonstration? Then what are we trying to accomplish in this post? Or is this post a logic demonstration of the corollaries dervied from the First Truth?

Also...it doesn't need empirical verification? Does this mean we don't need to prove it exists in order to use it in logic problems? Is God and Ultimate Truths proveable or unproveable? (rhetorical questions, I know...)

1.2.2. If it has not a frist Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.

Only insofar that all Truths MUST come from a single master truth, which is still in doubt. Truths may exist, either in a finite or infinite set, without having an Ultimate Truth it is derived from.

Good show!

 

[Keneke]

4. Basing God on axiomatic premises is useless since God cannot be demonstrated to be axiomatic.

Yes, but fighting fire with fire is certainly more fun!

 

[rebecca]

Hi Rebecca. I like your eyes.

Thanks.

Then you understand why I find the atheist so silly. If you accept there's a self-subsistent, unique and unlimited Truth, I don't care if you call it "God", "Betty Crocker" or "Gibblefritzes": Christians call it God.

Who says I accept that there's a self-subsistent, unique, and unlimited truth? I think I'll need some more info about this truth to determine what it is and if it exists or not, and then I'll decide what I'd like to call it.

However, we can ask ourselves: is this Truth also a Mind? The answer is yes. Since nothing is without an activity, ideas (single truths) won't be possible without a Supreme Intellect that possessed -not created- them and thought them eternally.

So not only do I not know that there's a truth, but now the truth is also a mind? And soon I suppose this mind will want me to worship it. Not so fast! Info, please.

 

[triadboy]

Re: Re: Re: From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

Then you understand why I find the atheist so silly. If you accept there's a self-subsistent, unique and unlimited Truth, I don't care if you call it "God", "Betty Crocker" or "Gibblefritzes": Christians call it God.

You would have been hung for this statement a couple of hundred years ago.

YHWH did not start out as the Universal Truth. YHWH is a tribal god that existed in a henotheistic environment. Henotheism is worshipping one god - knowing full well there are others. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is not an exclamation of solitude - it is a jealous Tribal God enslaving His people.

A large number of Christians follow this Tribal God - not the new-age, eastern religion god you speak of. Give me that ol' time religion.