From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

irichc, welcome to A2K.

I don't speak Spanish, and your arguments do not make any sense in English.

1) I'm not sure what you mean by "lead" but some truths may not lead anywhere. Others may lead in many different directions. How is a limit on truth a non-truth?

2) Why should a chain of truths be infinite? Perhaps they circle around back to the original truth. Perhaps truths lead to branches on a tree rather than a chain.

3) So you have simply declared that any truth, no matter how trivial, proves the existence of God.

4) and 5) Meaningless, since you have not proven 1) and 2).

I suspect, Irichc, that you mean by "leads" something like "entails." In some expressions of systems theory, one "truth" or fact entails others. In a perfectly complete systems every fact would entail all other facts WITHIN or OF that system; they are systematically related (I think that's so, not sure). In the Buddhist notion of Indra's Net we have a cosmic model of entailments wherein everything is related to and reflected in everything else: a complete unity. But I do not see how this can be useful in a theological proof of the existence of God.

Well thank Him for

not needing YOU


to prove


He


Exists.

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).

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.

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

Why bother with any of the other steps? If God is the "supreme and unattainable truth," then aren't you simply asserting "God exists?"

Please don't call this logic - I am just hoping its translation errors into English. But too call that sound logic reasoning is illogical.

But anyway - welcome and enjoy!

Excuse me, what am I supposed to enjoy?

Being here, learning! You get out of it what you put into it.

In you're earlier post you logic was scrambled and not rigorous - I guess you're excellent English isn't actually your native tongue?

A few folk have a killer understanding of logic, you just tripped into some of them!

But we are still nice if we get feed!

1. Although we complicate propositions, they will be self-contradictory or not, that is, they will be true or not.

1.1. Then, for instance, since the proposition "The Earth is flat" is not self-contradictory, it is a true one.

1.1.1. If in "the Earth is flat" we turn "is" into "can be", it is obvious there would be no nonsense involved. If something can be, then it is possible; therefore, it is. And, as far as it is rather than it isn't, it is true rather than false.

1.1.2. Because, even though the "is" form predisposes us to summon up an idea of present, the nature of Being extends itself to the whole timeline, from past to present and future. Thus, time can't erase what has already happened, and past things can't avoid new events to come. It doesn't matter how we express a true thought in a temporal form: we must adopt a perspective of eternity.

1.1.3. However, "It is true, here and now, that this wall is red" (being it a white wall, here and now) can't be called neither a true proposition nor a false one, since truth's nature can't be limited by the "here and now" form. Instead of it, we would be speaking of an empirical certainty, so "It is true that I have that certainty" would be true. But nothing else.

1.2. In the other hand, we don't contradict ourselves and, by the way, we don't express any tautology when we state "It is true that plumbers are philosophers".

1.2.1. "It is true that plumbers are and are not philosophers" is false. But "It is true that plumbers are philosophers" and "It is true that plumbers are not philosophers" are both true propositions even in the same system, since they don't summon up a precise moment.

1.2.2. As likely, it is correct to state both "It is true that A is alive" and "It is true that A is not alive", if in our system we have a third proposition as follows: "It is true that A is mortal". Being mortal means, of course, to deal constantly with the possibility of death.

1.2.2.1. Thus, it can't be considered self-contradictory to state (from a perspective of eternity) that "A is alive" and "A is not alive", but no doubt it would be if the proposition was "A is and is not alive". In the first case we have two propositions, harmonized by a third one; in the second case we have only one, which is self-contradictory.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Nonsense.


Nonsense on stilts.


Gibberish.


Gibberish on stilts.


Of course it doesn't express a tautology. It wouldn't be a tautology even if the definition of "true" were something other than "non-contradictory."


More nonsense.


Sez you.


What is the meaning of "is" from the perspective of eternity?

Irichc, re Proving 1), if you change the meaning of the symbol "2" as equal to the symbol "1" you have not changed the truth of mathematical equations but merely changed the symbols used to express them. You now have two symbols that represent a single unit, and no symbol to represent the quantity of two units. Some of the symbols are different, but mathematical truths are unchanged.

If "1" is defined as representing one unit and "2" represents two units, then the statement "1=2" is always false. You cannot change any other truths by proclaiming a falsehood as truth.

In any case, math cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God.

2) You still have not proven that this alleged succession of linked truths exists, or that any absolute or primordial Truth exists, or that an unlimited or self-referent truth is necessarily God, or why there can't be many true statements even if there is no linked chain or first truth.

A proposition can be false even if it is not self-contradictory.

Of course true statements can be limited to the here-and-now. "Is" refers to the present, not the past or future. Human beings are sometimes in a state between life and death, but most bodies are definitely either alive or not, here-and-now. Some organisms (manufactured DNA, spores, prions) can be considered as both alive and not-alive from different points of view.

It is true that some plumbers are philosophers. It is not true that all plumbers are philosophers. What's your point?

As Joe pointed out, all you have done is to make a bunch of unsupported assertions that make no logical sense.

I agree, this original post is a lot of gibberish. But how about we prove that God doesn't exist...

People gain consciousness when their brains are created out of physical matter and develop to a certain stage. People also lose consciousness and sub-consciousness when their brains stop operating. Therefore consciousness is a reaction which is produced by physical matter in the brain. Thus, it is not possible for a soul to exist after a person's body is non-functional. This disproves heaven and hell, because there is no soul to go there.

Research has proven that DNA encodes the physical properties of life and that the replicating procedure makes a close copy that is not exact. This proves that evolution is not only possible but inevitable. The fossil record and numerous other sources corroborate this. This disproves that God made any organisms on Earth.

Telescopes and the measurement of the speed of light prove that matter can be found billions of light years in all directions from our planet. It has been proven that all matter has mass and gravity. This also proves that time has passed for an unknown duration, at least billions of years, with no suggestion that it had a beginning.

The existence of gravity proves that planets, galaxies, and suns will be created wherever enough matter exists. This explains the creation of nearly all known celestial bodies including the Earth without flaw.

Religion has universally been adapted by people of the world without influence of each other to explain the above phenomena, and each religion lacks any tangible evidence. This fact alone suggests that religion is a human creation developed in order to rationalize our existence.

Everything attributed to God's doing in every religion has already been explained by modern scientific laws. Many of the beliefs in God also contradict basic laws of science which have been successfully used to describe our universe, and none of which have ever been proven wrong by any evidence known to man. Thus, to discredit these laws in the belief of something which has, to the contrary, no foundation in evidence is strictly illogical.

Faith is, by definition, the belief in something for no logical reason. Thus, anyone who believes in something in part because of faith is illogical. The average human brain certainly has the capability for logic. Therefore, a person believing in faith has a mental disability.

This so far does not prove that God doesn't exist, but it does prove that if a God did exist, it would never have influenced humanity because there is nothing which has not already been explained by scientific laws. Since there is no tangible evidence that a God exists, and there is evidence that if one did exist it would have no influence, this is an effectual proof that no God exists.

Furthermore, a God would be conscious by definition, and thus would have to have a physical brain and body. We know that this doesn't exist on Earth, we have proven there is no heaven and hell, and it's ridiculous to say there is a body floating in space because that is inhospitable. God therefore does not exist (once again, although we already proved this above).

Considering the freedom of information in the US, anyone who cannot identify and understand the plethora of information contained herein must have either a mental disability preventing them from comprehending the truth, or extreme emotional problems which prevent them from accepting the truth.

stuh505: Your attempts to prove God doesn't exist are as faulty, and ultimately as futile, as irichc's attempts to prove God exists.

Hmm, I hardly believe you mean that, given the illogical nature of the original post. You may find my "proof" to be indefinite, but to compare it to nonsensical gibberish is not helpful and I'm sure you just did it to empower your statement.

I recognize that my proof is not a "logical proof" in the traditional form, which could be translated into an equation which fits a generic style of proof (as irichch tried to do), but it is obvious (i think) that no correct proof of this type could ever be written to prove/disprove God.

So yes, perhaps not each step is 100% sound, but I think the leaps which one must take are all quite small. If you have a problem with part of it and you think it is wrong...please tell me, because I am not an idiot and although our beliefs will not be changed perhaps I will notice a flaw in my logic and revise it...

That bit about soul's stopping when the body dies loses me. The body anchors the soul somewhat to this reality in most religious systems. Death removes the anchor that is all, the soul can journey on its way.

stuh505: The problem is that your attempt to disprove the existence of God is based, in large part, on inductive (empirical) reasoning. For instance, you state:

People gain consciousness when their brains are created out of physical matter and develop to a certain stage. People also lose consciousness and sub-consciousness when their brains stop operating. Therefore consciousness is a reaction which is produced by physical matter in the brain. Thus, it is not possible for a soul to exist after a person's body is non-functional. This disproves heaven and hell, because there is no soul to go there.

Your conclusion is premised on an empirical "truth" that all consciousness resides, ultimately, in the brain. As with all empirical truths, however, this cannot be proven by consistent cases, it can only be disproven by inconsistent cases. Thus, if we find no cases that contradict your premise, then your argument is no better logically than it was before finding the consistencies. On the other hand, if we find even one case where consciousness does not reside in a brain, then your argument falls apart.

Attempting to disprove God's existence inductively, then, is similar to the argument: "it is a scientific fact that all equines have hooves, therefore unicorns have hooves." Or "it is a scientific fact that all sentient beings breathe oxygen, therefore the hydrogen monsters of the Crab Nebula breathe oxygen." Not only are we not entitled to assert that the subjects of these arguments are logically true, we are not entitled to assert that the predicates are either true or false.

You cannot, therefore, disprove the existence of God merely because the idea of an infinite, ethereal God doesn't fit our empirical notions of reality, since those notions are always subject to revision. As such, irichc was at least on the right track in attempting to prove God's existence deductively rather than inductively. Of course, he failed miserably, but then that is the fate of all who undertake that task.

Sounds to me like anselms' theorem, just badly reworded.

Cycloptichorn

But it seems all the evidence we have shows that whenever the "anchor" is removed, the soul is also removed. Examples:

1 - it seems consciousness/soul is borne when the physical fetus develops to a certain point. if this is true, it is a strong case that consciousness is created from a physical reaction. we do not know exactly when consciousness occurs, but consciousness is linked to memory which has been recorded as early as 6 weeks old. this suggest to me (although i recognize it does not prove) that consciousness also is borne at about this time.

2 - i personally have a heart condition that causes me to frequently lose oxygen to the brain. when this happens, i lose consciousness completely. no dreams, no nothing. then i come back again...but it is not like my soul/consciousness stays where watching over me, im just gone. this personally seems like quite strong evidence that my consciousness/soul does not exist when my brain is not functioning.

3 - it has been proven that the act of thinking uses oxygen and energy in our body. thus, if there were no source of oxygen/energy, we would not be able to think. if there is no lungs/digestive system as found in the body, there is no way for the consciousness to gain the necessary resources to think. this is a pretty strong case in itself i think.




Your point is well taken. However, as I did state in my reply, I recognize that my inductive methods do not "prove" in the literal sense of the word. Rather...remove all reasonable doubt.



How can this possibly be the right track? There is simply not enough evidence to prove it either way using this kind of logic...

stuh, I agree with you that souls do not exist independently of the body since it has been conclusively proven that a functioning organic brain is necessary for human consciousness. When specific areas of the brain are damaged or drugged, consciousness is impaired or absent even though other functions are unaffected.

Without an eternal soul, the concepts of heaven, hell, and reincarnation are meaningless. That does not mean that there are no gods, just that the Christian notion of God is incorrect.

The brains of 6 week old embryos are not developed enough to allow consciousness or memory. Yes, they react to stimuli, but so does a robot. Based on the kinds of brain waves produced by fetuses, consciousness is probably not possible before about 24 weeks of gestation.

I agree that DNA and fossil evidence proves that life on earth evolved over a period of several billion years, but we cannot prove that a god did not influence the process at some point. Of course we can ask why a god would take billions of years to figure out how to produce multi-cellular organisms, why it took so many failed attempts to produce the current species, and why god still has not corrected so many design flaws, but perhaps the Creator was just a lousy engineer.

Agreed that we have no reason to think that a god was necessary to create galaxies, stars and planets, but there is a lot we still don't know about cosmology such as what dark matter and dark energy really are.

It amuses me that some people say that it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence out of "nothing" but have no problem believing that God could magically create an entire universe out of "nothing" with just a word.

Faith is belief without proof, not necessarily illogical belief. Religious leaders can construct what appears to be a consistent and entirely logical belief system, as long as followers do not question the basic premises or examine it too closely.

The history and variety of religious belief suggests that gods are created by people who want control over the mysterious forces of nature and fate. There is no scientific evidence that supernatural deities can be influenced by prayer, bribes, threats, sacrifice or anything else to intervene on behalf of human beings. But there are enough coincidences and anecdotal tales of miracles to convince many people of God's existence.