Proof of God

[Wolfman]

Except for Proof by Contradiction, and I'm pretty sure that's not where Dustin's going with this.

And even with proof by contradiction, it doesn't really work. Among his statements, Dustin has claimed that it is "logical" to conclude that the Biblical god is the only logical god. In order to support such an argument, one would need to demonstrate that, if a person had no previous exposure to any theological beliefs whatsoever, and was left only with "logic" to examine the universe around him (and all the tools necessary to do so), he would inevitably come to the conclusion that A) a god must exist and B) that that god's characteristics were the same as the characteristics of the god described in the Bible (without having any pre-existing knowledge of that god).

Yet I cannot see any "logical" argument by which such a result can be proven inevitable, not even probable. The entirety of human experience, including "logical" examination by numerous highly intelligent and logical people, has led to countless different views on "reality", the "existence of god", and the "nature of god".

Unless Dustin can demonstrate that a person would inevitably come to such conclusions without any pre-existing knowledge or bias, I consider such arguments to be pointless, and to demonstrate nothing other than the well-documented ability to use "logic" to prove pretty much anything, if you've decided what you want to prove in advance.

 

[Solus]

Dustin, you expect us to read that whole argument you present, when you hardly ever give respect to any forum members? Not worth my time, either you really converted or you are a clearly showing your colors as a troll.

 

[PixyMisa]

And even with proof by contradiction, it doesn't really work. Among his statements, Dustin has claimed that it is "logical" to conclude that the Biblical god is the only logical god. In order to support such an argument, one would need to demonstrate that, if a person had no previous exposure to any theological beliefs whatsoever, and was left only with "logic" to examine the universe around him (and all the tools necessary to do so), he would inevitably come to the conclusion that A) a god must exist and B) that that god's characteristics were the same as the characteristics of the god described in the Bible (without having any pre-existing knowledge of that god).

Well, if what he was really trying to do was prove that God doesn't exist... But of course that won't work for much the same reasons.

Unless Dustin can demonstrate that a person would inevitably come to such conclusions without any pre-existing knowledge or bias, I consider such arguments to be pointless, and to demonstrate nothing other than the well-documented ability to use "logic" to prove pretty much anything, if you've decided what you want to prove in advance.

And blindly insist that your logic is unassailable even when it has been picked to pieces.

 

[Ginarley]

I don't know what you mean.

My point here is that your definition of god is full of essentially meaningless terms that don't really define anything. I am asking what you mean by your definition of god.

The world existing in or formed by nature.

What is nature then? (Hint: a definition should never include the term it is trying to define...)

Could mean a lot of things. Be a bit more specific in your question.

Yes controlling the universe could mean a lot of things. That is exactly my point. I want to know what YOU mean by that phrase with respect to your definition of god.

I am not trying to be pedantic for the sake of it here mate - you have made a very bold claim of a proof of god and I have a suspician you don't actually know what it is you are trying to prove exists. At least I don't think you know specifically enough for it to have any meaning beyond "something exists" - and if your argument falls into the "something exists" category then far be it from me to argue. I wouldn't call existence god though, and I am pretty sure that is not what you mean.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

My point here is that your definition of god is full of essentially meaningless terms that don't really define anything. I am asking what you mean by your definition of god.

How is it meaningless?

Yes controlling the universe could mean a lot of things. That is exactly my point. I want to know what YOU mean by that phrase with respect to your definition of god.

I am not trying to be pedantic for the sake of it here mate - you have made a very bold claim of a proof of god and I have a suspician you don't actually know what it is you are trying to prove exists. At least I don't think you know specifically enough for it to have any meaning beyond "something exists" - and if your argument falls into the "something exists" category then far be it from me to argue. I wouldn't call existence god though, and I am pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Controlling the universe would mean having control over some or all aspects of the universe including natural laws.

 

[Wolfman]

Ya' know, Dustin, I like your style.

Why bother with logical, rational debate? Instead, write an incredibly long post and insist that everyone must read it before responding...then when people actually take the time to read it, and respond with rational, logical questions/objections, you simply ignore all but a very few, and you focus primarily on subjects that involve minor points of semantics, rather than fundamental criticisms of the foundations of your "logic".

As I said, at one time, I used to have beliefs and arguments similar to yours...perhaps the difference between us is that I actually took the time to listen to others, and examine their arguments, rather than blindly proceeding on the assumption that I'm right, and can therefore safely dismiss all contrary points of view.

A tactic which, I must admit, really seems to be a prerequisite to maintaining beliefs such as yours.

 

[PixyMisa]

How is it meaningless?

You have to define all the terms used in your definitions.

And the you have to define all the terms used in those definitions.

Somewhere along the way, you have to stop using words and tie your concepts to logic, mathematics, or direct observations.

You have failed to do so.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ya' know, Dustin, I like your style.

Why bother with logical, rational debate? Instead, write an incredibly long post and insist that everyone must read it before responding...then when people actually take the time to read it, and respond with rational, logical questions/objections, you simply ignore all but a very few, and you focus primarily on subjects that involve minor points of semantics, rather than fundamental criticisms of the foundations of your "logic".

As I said, at one time, I used to have beliefs and arguments similar to yours...perhaps the difference between us is that I actually took the time to listen to others, and examine their arguments, rather than blindly proceeding on the assumption that I'm right, and can therefore safely dismiss all contrary points of view.

A tactic which, I must admit, really seems to be a prerequisite to maintaining beliefs such as yours.

I apologize if I haven't gotten to your posts yet. However I know all of the arguments that would oppose me and I used to believe in them. I'm not ignoring anyones arguments.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You have to define all the terms used in your definitions.

And the you have to define all the terms used in those definitions.

Somewhere along the way, you have to stop using words and tie your concepts to logic, mathematics, or direct observations.

You have failed to do so.

Again, All words are defined in relation to other words. Every single definition works that way. I have defined the words used in my definition already at your request. You can't deny my definition because it "needs further words defined" or "relies on words" or any other nonsensical reasoning. All definitions to any words anywhere use other words. That's how definitions works, that's how language works.

 

[PixyMisa]

Again, All words are defined in relation to other words.

False.

Every single definition works that way.

False.

I have defined the words used in my definition already at your request.

Yes - and now you need to define the words you use in those definitions.

Until you tell us how to measure it.

You can't deny my definition because it "needs further words defined" or "relies on words"

I don't deny it; I just point out that it is thus necessarily either ill-defined or circular.

All definitions to any words anywhere use other words. That's how definitions works, that's how language works.

You don't have a clue how language works.

Hang on.

You say this is a "Proof of God".

You defined God. Inadequately, but let that pass.

What do you mean by proof?

This time.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

False.

One example then.

False.

One example then.

Yes - and now you need to define the words you use in those definitions.

Until you tell us how to measure it.

Define "Innovation" for me. Without relying on other words that also need defining.

I don't deny it; I just point out that it is thus necessarily either ill-defined or circular.

What definitions aren't?

You don't have a clue how language works.

Hang on.

You say this is a "Proof of God".

You defined God. Inadequately, but let that pass.

What do you mean by proof?

This time.

THIS time I'm using both definitions of proof. In the improvement on Gödel's argument I'm using proof in a logical context. In the other arguments I'm using proof as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true. I believe I made that clear in the O.P.

 

[PixyMisa]

One example then.

One example then.

Already provided.

Define "Innovation" for me. Without relying on other words that also need defining.

Why?

What definitions aren't?

Nouns. Many adjectives and verbs.

I you just look in common language dictionaries, all you will find is words. That's why science doesn't use them.

THIS time I'm using both definitions of proof. In the improvement on Gödel's argument I'm using proof in a logical context. In the other arguments I'm using proof as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true. I believe I made that clear in the O.P.

What do you mean by "sufficient"?

Is this a deductive proof? Or inductive? What is the nature of this evidence?

 

[PixyMisa]

Dustin, you said you found a reason for beliving in God that you found so convincing that it caused you to convert from atheism.

What was that reason?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Already provided.

Do you mean this?

Refuted here, and here.

Try again.

Why?

Because you can't define it without relying on other words which also be defined, which in turn rely on more words that need to be defined, etc. Which is your criticism of my definition, which is baseless since all works are defined in relation to other words.

Nouns. Many adjectives and verbs.

Pick one then. "Innovate" is a verb. Define it without relying on other words that also must be defined.

I you just look in common language dictionaries, all you will find is words. That's why science doesn't use them.

Science doesn't use words?

What do you mean by "sufficient"?

Sufficient-adequate for the purpose; enough: sufficient proof; sufficient protection.

Is this a deductive proof? Or inductive? What is the nature of this evidence?

The rework of Gödel's proof? It's modal.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, you said you found a reason for beliving in God that you found so convincing that it caused you to convert from atheism.

What was that reason?

Explained in detail in the OP.

 

[Wolfman]

I apologize if I haven't gotten to your posts yet. However I know all of the arguments that would oppose me and I used to believe in them. I'm not ignoring anyones arguments.

Funny that -- I've posted a very fundamental argument, which requires no clarification of terms, and have posted it several times; yet you fail entirely to respond to it.

So I'll try again.

It is your contention that A) it is logical to believe in god, and that a logical examination of the universe will reveal the existence of a god, and B) that further to this, a logical examination of the universe will also demonstrate that the Christian god is the only "logical" one.

It is a necessary corollary to your argument -- but one which you have ignored entirely -- that if your argument is true, then it should be possible to demonstrate that a person who was presented with our universe, without any preconceived notions as to the origin of that universe, or the existence of supernatural beings, and who examined that universe from a purely neutral, logical point of view, would necessarily come to the conclusion that A) there was a god, and B) that that god's nature was the same as (or at least very similar to) the nature of the Christian god.

However, I contend that this is not the case. First, I would contend that it would be fully possible -- and logical -- for a person examining our universe to conclude that it had an entirely natural origin, no supernatural origin at all. Just as it would be fully possible for such a person to conclude that it had a supernatural origin.

But beyond that, once we take the debate to specifics such as the nature of that god, your argument becomes ludicrous. Even if we conclude that the existence of a god is logical, what is there in the universe to indicate that there is only one? Why not multiple gods? Either multiple gods who are all omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, or else some hierarchical system of superior and inferior gods? Or that such a god is pure "good", and has no evil in him, despite the existence of evil/pain/suffering in the universe (and therefore come to the conclusion that there must be some other entity/force that causes those things)? Or, in fact, any other trait/characteristic ascribed to the Christian god?

Your arguments in regard to the existence of a god have at least a decent philosophical foundation; albeit they no more serve as "proof" of anything than do any of the hundreds of other philosophical/theological "proofs" of the existence (or non-existence) of any particular god.

However, when you then add that it proves the Christian god, it serves only to demonstrate how little you actually understand the "logic" of your own arguments. As I've stated previously, your logic is predicated on a predetermined belief as to what is "true", and then tailoring your arguments to suit that belief.

But if we were to remove that initial belief, and instead present a person who was a blank slate, with no preconceived notions or beliefs, I think it is ludicrous in the extreme -- and an entirely unsupportable logical premise -- to think that they would logically come to the same conclusions, or that those are the only logical conclusions which could be reached.

Why is the Bible (or any other religious text) necessary? Because without it, there is no logical basis for arriving at those beliefs. Honestly, you think that a truly neutral observer, looking at our universe, would be required by logic to conclude that A) there is a god, B) there is only one god, C) that god is composed of three different aspects (father, son, holy spirit), etc.?

Of course not. Any "proofs" of this are made after the fact. You decide what is true, then you tailor your arguments to fit it.

And, since you know that your conclusion is correct, it is logical for you to conclude that your arguments, and the steps taken to reach that conclusion, must also be correct. And to dismiss any opposing or contradictory arguments.

But Dustin, that has nothing to do with logic. Nothing to do with "empirical proof". It is just another game of semantics and logical jousting, in which every side proves whatever they want, and neither side proves anything. Which, perhaps, is the reason you seem to prefer to much to focus on issues of semantics...it enables you to maintain your view, without actually examining the overall structure upon which your argument is based.

Is your argument a valid justification for the beliefs that you hold personally? I'd say that, based on your experience and view of the universe, yes it is.

Is your argument a "logical" argument that demonstrates a "proof" of anything? Not at all. Given exactly the same evidence, many people would come to many different conclusions, and every one would be equally convinced of the "truth" of their view.

 

[andyandy]

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.

 

[PixyMisa]

Science doesn't use words?

Nope.

For all formal work, science uses mathematics.

Sufficient-adequate for the purpose; enough: sufficient proof; sufficient protection.

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?

The rework of Gödel's proof? It's modal.

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

 

[PixyMisa]

Explained in detail in the OP.

Your OP is a 7000-word collection of logical fallacies. Which bit of it?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It is your contention that A) it is logical to believe in god, and that a logical examination of the universe will reveal the existence of a god, and B) that further to this, a logical examination of the universe will also demonstrate that the Christian god is the only "logical" one.

It is a necessary corollary to your argument -- but one which you have ignored entirely -- that if your argument is true, then it should be possible to demonstrate that a person who was presented with our universe, without any preconceived notions as to the origin of that universe, or the existence of supernatural beings, and who examined that universe from a purely neutral, logical point of view, would necessarily come to the conclusion that A) there was a god, and B) that that god's nature was the same as (or at least very similar to) the nature of the Christian god.

Indeed.

However, I contend that this is not the case. First, I would contend that it would be fully possible -- and logical -- for a person examining our universe to conclude that it had an entirely natural origin, no supernatural origin at all. Just as it would be fully possible for such a person to conclude that it had a supernatural origin.

Possible but not necessarily logical for the former.

But beyond that, once we take the debate to specifics such as the nature of that god, your argument becomes ludicrous. Even if we conclude that the existence of a god is logical, what is there in the universe to indicate that there is only one? Why not multiple gods? Either multiple gods who are all omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, or else some hierarchical system of superior and inferior gods? Or that such a god is pure "good", and has no evil in him, despite the existence of evil/pain/suffering in the universe (and therefore come to the conclusion that there must be some other entity/force that causes those things)? Or, in fact, any other trait/characteristic ascribed to the Christian god?

Why one God instead of two or three? Think of the irresistible force meeting an immovable object paradox and you'll see.

As far as 'evil' goes, I addressed that in the OP.

However, when you then add that it proves the Christian god, it serves only to demonstrate how little you actually understand the "logic" of your own arguments. As I've stated previously, your logic is predicated on a predetermined belief as to what is "true", and then tailoring your arguments to suit that belief.

I haven't proven the Christian God yet. The OP just opens the door for a good number of candidate Gods (Yahweh being one of them).

Why is the Bible (or any other religious text) necessary? Because without it, there is no logical basis for arriving at those beliefs. Honestly, you think that a truly neutral observer, looking at our universe, would be required by logic to conclude that A) there is a god, B) there is only one god, C) that god is composed of three different aspects (father, son, holy spirit), etc.?

Yes.

Of course not. Any "proofs" of this are made after the fact. You decide what is true, then you tailor your arguments to fit it.

If the arguments and premises are valid, I see no problem.

And, since you know that your conclusion is correct, it is logical for you to conclude that your arguments, and the steps taken to reach that conclusion, must also be correct. And to dismiss any opposing or contradictory arguments.

I don't dismiss any opposing arguments. I carefully address and consider them and toss them out if they are flawed.

But Dustin, that has nothing to do with logic. Nothing to do with "empirical proof". It is just another game of semantics and logical jousting, in which every side proves whatever they want, and neither side proves anything.

Huh?

Which, perhaps, is the reason you seem to prefer to much to focus on issues of semantics...it enables you to maintain your view, without actually examining the overall structure upon which your argument is based.

Or because I prefer to be concise.

Is your argument a valid justification for the beliefs that you hold personally? I'd say that, based on your experience and view of the universe, yes it is.

It's a justification of God. Period. Not just for me but for you as well.

Is your argument a "logical" argument that demonstrates a "proof" of anything? Not at all. Given exactly the same evidence, many people would come to many different conclusions, and every one would be equally convinced of the "truth" of their view.

So tell me how, given my evidence, you would come to a different conclusion.