The burdon of proof lies with the one staking the claim.!
Deliver up this God!:shocked:
I'll not trouble you further, there are many like minded here for you to discuss your beliefs with. Some welcome the mans says, well, it is a philosphy site.
I have an argument that God is self-evident:
Aquinas said that, because "The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps 14:1, NASB), the existence of God is not self-evident (Summa Theologica, Question 2, Article 1). Well, if there is no God, why, pray tell, is there a word for Him? Every concept can be described by a word (or words), and every word (or words) describe a concept. My paraphrase of Proposition 7 of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. For all x(C(x)<->W(x)). There exists a word for God. Therefore, there must be an associated concept for that word "God", namely God. This merely proves that God exists as an idea in our minds. Going one step further, since according to Hume all ideas are images of sense impressions (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, part 2), our idea of God is a dim copy of the real God, something that our finite minds can grasp. But where did that sense-impression come from? It could be as simple as Ps 19:1, NASB -- "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." The universe is simply too fine-tuned, complex, and delicate to be anything but the product of an omnipotent Designer, and our idea of Him is but a mere copy of our sense-impression of Him, which is but a mere image of Him as He really is. So therefore, not only does God exist, he is much more than our conception of him. QED.
Is my symbolic logic correct?
Can anyone analyze or refute this? Am I echoing another philosopher?
Because God is not self-evident I would say that your conclusions do not follow the premise. You cannot take others' words out of context to prove your conclusions. Hume would never argue that all ideas are images of sense impressions when applied to the idea of God. Remember Hume was an empiricist dealing with the practical not the abstract. Thus, you are turning Hume's philosophy on its head for your proof. That invalidates you proof.
Here is a different example of your argument. Because "God" is a word and the idea of God exists in our minds is meaningless. "Invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" are words and the idea of an invisible pink unicorn exists in my brain. Where did that idea come from? Does it mean that the invisible pink unicorn exists and is much more than my conception of it?
Aquinas said that, because "The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps 14:1, NASB), the existence of God is not self-evident (Summa Theologica, Question 2, Article 1). Well, if there is no God, why, pray tell, is there a word for Him?
The universe is simply too fine-tuned, complex, and delicate to be anything but the product of an omnipotent Designer
Now you're making me think more. Thank you!
But, "invisible" and "pink" are contradictory. That invalidaes your counter-example, b/c logically impossible ideas by definition cannot exist in reality. There's nothing logically impossible about God's existence.
What if remove the "self-evident" part, and just try to use all of this prove God exists?
Am I doing something right?
Invisible and pink are not contradictory. Visible and invisible are contradictory. Things can have color but not be visible because the visibility of an object may be limited by an individuals inability to see the object.
That's beside the point though. Get rid of the pink concept and then my example would be fine by your reasoning anyway and the argument would not change.
Another point. If you think God exists and is anything other than an amorphous being, then by your reasoning his existence would be contradictory because he is invisible but would contain observable properties. :poke-eye:
Getting rid of self-evident would do nothing for your argument since you invalidated a premise necessary for the conclusion to follow by improperly applying an idea of Hume's.
To Didymos Thomas, read Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator.
How so? If you mean "not objectively verifiable" or "unfalsifiable", then is what we are doing here science? By that standard, no.