Proof God Exists?

ptge

Wicknight wrote: »

Well if we are talking about logic rather than order in the universe, I "justify" them through their own declaration.

Huh? God exists by His own declaration. How do you like your argument now?

Wicknight wrote: »

Logic is a human formal system of organising and classifying statements.

Logic is based on a set of human defined rules. If you stick to the rules you can declare a position to be logical, if you don't then it isn't. If you like you can go off and make your own set of rules.

If one made their own set of rules that stated that contradictions in reasoning were 'true' would this be valid, if not, why not?

Wicknight wrote: »

No idea. But then you haven't explained how God does either.

Sure I have, on the website.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which again was my point. You can suppose anything in part one of that statement and still end up with a logical statement.

Nope, I show how God is the necessary precondition for logic (on the website) and you have admitted that you cannot do the same with your chicken

Wicknight wrote: »

Your argument is not nonsense by standards of logic, it is just nonsense.

By what standard, or is this just your personal opinion. If it is only your personal opinion, pardon me, but why should I care?

Wicknight wrote: »

Your lack of ability to imagine a world where logic can exist without God is neither here nor there.

I prefer not to live on blind faith.

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't demonstrate anything, because you could simply lack imagination. It certain does not justify the supposition that God is necessary for logic to exist, because you are ignoring the alternative, that God isn't necessary for logic to exist but you just can't imagine that.

The floor is yours, state your case.

Wicknight wrote: »

The contrary is that an intelligent creator entity is not required for any of those things to exist. Compare away.

Um, where exactly is your contrary justification for the laws of logic??? All you are doing is disagreeing with mine.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are making the mistake of apply the human derived laws of cognitive logic to the structure of the natural world, which there is little evidence they must hold as anyone who spend any time looking at quantum physics will tell you.

Do the laws of logic apply to our discussion, is so why, if not, why not?

Wicknight wrote: »

I can decide a set of rules, and I can assess if you are or are not following these rules when you make statements. The rules of logic are human inventions, pretty standardised by philosophers over the years, but they have little bearing outside of human discussion.

Oh, so the laws of logic have much bearing outside of human discussion. Good. You see, if the law of non-contradiction is merely a human invention, then you should have no problem with my contradciting you, based on a new law of logic which says 'contradictions are cool.' Now, that's absurd!

Cheers,

Sye

rockbeer

ptge wrote: »

You still lack justification for the laws of logic. How does this scenario get you universal, abstract, invariant laws, and knowledge of same?

Such laws are encoded into the software in such a way that all 'lifeforms', 'matter', actions and behaviours within the software are subject to them. You already know how knowledge of them is gained. You know about them, right?

Maybe the developers are/were also subject to the same laws in the outerverse. Or maybe they implemented them purely for the purposes of the 'universe' program, so they are 'universal, abstract and invariant' here but not necessarily there, where different rules of which we know nothing may apply.

It doesn't matter much - the point is they meet your criteria within the universe.

In case you're struggling to get it, I'm proposing an entity indistinguishable from your concept of god in its effect on our universe but which in fact bears no relation to your concept of god in its actual existence. This entity (a team of advanced developers) is 'supernatural' to us but has an actual material existence in the 'outerverse'. It has the absolute power to create our universe, impose 'universal' rules and laws, twist those laws to perform miracles when necessary without compromising the integrity of the software, allow terrible suffering to take place in the world they created because they know we are really only 'software' despite all appearances to the contrary, and basically make it all exactly as we perceive it. In other words, these developers have created a universe indistinguishable in every possible way from the one you imagine to have been created by your god.

My challenge remains: disprove my scenario with an argument that wouldn't also apply to god.

Akrasia

ptge wrote: »

Logically nonsensical? How do you account for the laws of logic that you are holding my argument to,and why do they apply to my argument?

Nonsense in that the words you are saying don't make any sense. You're using the fact that your arguments are inconsistent and circular as though the rubbishness of your 'logic' is somehow a proof that god exists.

As has been said over and over and over again, Logic is a human invention. Its a mechanism that we use to try and make imperfect language scientific enough to discuss things in a categorical way. It's supposed to assist in philosophical discussion by attaching rules to what forms of argument are acceptable and which are tricks and/or errors in reason. Logic did not come from god, it came from thousands of years of philosophical development, where people arguing with each other identified a number of devices that can
be used to distort meaning and make false claims, so we (not god) came up with the 'rules of logic' to stop the exact kinds of 'reasoning' that you use.

Logic clearly isn't a perfect device because people like you know enough about it to abuse it, but are too ignorant to recognise your own shortcomings. If God created 'absolute logic', then there wouldn't be these discussions on the nature of logic because we would all have an innate grasp of it.

Where have I done this, please support your accusation.

here "How do you know? You are assuming the validity of your senses, your reasoning, your memory and those laws in order to come to this conclusion." http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56090502&postcount=46

and here "Well, I'm not since I believe that God can reveal things to us entirely apart from our senses, reasoning, and memory, but still, I can account for their reliability as I know them to be a gift from God. How do you know that your senses, reasoning, and memory are reliable?"
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56102023&postcount=91

I assume you were using the cartesian argument that our senses are fallable. The only other argument you might have been making is that our senses are only reliable because god makes them so, which would be a ludicrous statement because our senses are blatantly unreliable in some circumstances.

Again, support your accusation, where have I done this?

when you said god revealed things in a way you know it to be true. Your arguments are so useless you don't even know what you're saying yourself.

I don't know who you are arguing with, but it's not me, or my website, I don't make any of the claims you are arguing against.

So you're saying human senses are infallable? Or that your 'innate' sense of god is fallable? You have never described how exactly 'god' revealed himself to you in a way you can be 100% certain it's true. If you say 'the bible' you're looking for a smack in the face.

robindch

This diagram may help:

ptge

rockbeer wrote: »

Such laws are encoded into the software in such a way that all 'lifeforms', 'matter', actions and behaviours within the software are subject to them.

Um, except the encoders, which does not make them universal.

rockbeer wrote: »

You already know how knowledge of them is gained. You know about them, right?

I know about them, based on my worldview, you would have to tell us how knowledge of them can be gained according to your worldview.

rockbeer wrote: »

Maybe the developers are/were also subject to the same laws in the outerverse. Or maybe they implemented them purely for the purposes of the 'universe' program, so they are 'universal, abstract and invariant' here but not necessarily there, where different rules of which we know nothing may apply.

Ah, so this is just wild specualtion, and not what you believe. Really, I do not have time to refute a worldview that neither of us believe. Again though, your scenario does not give us universal laws of logic, since they do not necessarily apply universally.

rockbeer wrote: »

It doesn't matter much - the point is they meet your criteria within the universe.

Hardly, the laws of logic, according to my worldview, apply universally, they do not necessarily in your scenario.

rockbeer wrote: »

In case you're struggling to get it, I'm proposing an entity indistinguishable from your concept of god in its effect on our universe but which in fact bears no relation to your concept of god in its actual existence.

Well, one thing is certain then, you cannot account for the laws of logic without positting something which 'looks' exactly like the Christian concept of God. Problem is, you have yet to tell us how you know about this version of God.

rockbeer wrote: »

My challenge remains: disprove my scenario with an argument that wouldn't also apply to god.

Simple, God has revealed to us, in a way that we can be certain of its truth, that He is the creater of everything, which makes your scenario false. If you care to tell us how you know your scenario to be true, the floor is yours. I am much more interested in what you actually believe though, since, as I said, I do not have the time to refute worldviews, neither of us believe. How do you account for universal, abstract, unchanging laws?

Cheers,

Sye

ptge

robindch wrote: »

This diagram may help:

Problem is, it is you people who are positting the circular argument. Watch: Please tell me how you know that your ability to reason is valid?

Akrasia

ptge wrote: »

Ah, so this is just wild specualtion, and not what you believe. Really, I do not have time to refute a worldview that neither of us believe. Again though, your scenario does not give us universal laws of logic, since they do not necessarily apply universally.

No, its a thought experiment, and as an experiment, it has just as much evidence for it as your divine 'worldview'. Btw, belief has nothing to do with truth. The fact that you believe in god says absolutely nothing about whether or not god does exist. We might not believe that we are a part of a big computer experiment, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Hardly, the laws of logic, according to my worldview, apply universally, they do not necessarily in your scenario.

And where did you get your worldview? If the laws of logic and morality and all that stuff apply universally, then why don't they apply to god? If they don't apply to god, then they don't apply universally

Well, one thing is certain then, you cannot account for the laws of logic without positting something which 'looks' exactly like the Christian concept of God.

Absolute and total bullcrap. The christian god has loads of 'properties' that are completely unnecessary for a basic function of controlling order in the universe.

Simple, God has revealed to us, in a way that we can be certain of its truth, that He is the creater of everything, which makes your scenario false.

I have asked this before, HOW has he 'revealed himself'. And if we can be certain that its true, why don't I believe in him?

Zombrex

ptge wrote: »

Huh? God exists by His own declaration. How do you like your argument now?

God can't exist through our declaration because God is supposed to be something that exists in the material world, ie independent to our imagination.

If on the other hand you said that God was simply in human imagination then you could say that the imaginary concept exists simply because we imagine it.

Logic is simply a set of rules that humans have devised. They exist because we devised them, we justify them ourselves through their declaration. And they don't exist outside of our heads. They certainly don't determine how the universe must opperate.

ptge wrote: »

If one made their own set of rules that stated that contradictions in reasoning were 'true' would this be valid, if not, why not?

It would be valid for those rules.

This seems to be a point you are having trouble with. You talk about something being valid as if that means something outside of the rules of logic. It doesn't. Being logically valid simply means following the rules of logic. If you come up with your own rules something is valid if it matches those rules.

ptge wrote: »

Sure I have, on the website.

No you haven't, at least not on any of those pages that are part of the quiz section.

ptge wrote: »

Nope, I show how God is the necessary precondition for logic (on the website) and you have admitted that you cannot do the same with your chicken

Again you don't, you simply state that. Unless there is a web page that I have missed. If so can you quote the part of your website where you justify why God is a necessary precondition for logic.

ptge wrote: »

By what standard, or is this just your personal opinion. If it is only your personal opinion, pardon me, but why should I care?

By the "standard" of the "problem of induction", see Karl Popper for more.

The classic example of this is "I've only ever seen white swans, therefore all swans must be white". This is an inductive statement based on the limited experience of the person making the statement. You can't say it is true because the person has not rules out the possibility that it is there lack or experience that is the reason, and it turns out it isn't true (there are black swans)

You should only care that you are doing this if you are interested in not looking silly.

ptge wrote: »

I prefer not to live on blind faith.

Your search for a logical reason to believe in God is certainly evidence of that. The problem is that your desire to believe in God is leading you to make unsupported jumps, that appear to be based on blind faith. If you are truly interested in putting logic before faith I would suggest you stop doing that, but then you would have to be prepared to accept the possibility then that you do not arrive at a logical argument for God. Which may cause a crisis of faith, at which point you are back to square one willing the the gaps.

ptge wrote: »

The floor is yours, state your case.

That is my case.

ptge wrote: »

Um, where exactly is your contrary justification for the laws of logic??? All you are doing is disagreeing with mine.

I explained at the start of the previous point the "justification" for the laws of logic. Logic is justified by the people who make the rules - Us.

ptge wrote: »

Do the laws of logic apply to our discussion, is so why, if not, why not?

Some parts, other parts no.

ptge wrote: »

Oh, so the laws of logic have much bearing outside of human discussion. Good.

Perhaps you should read the sentence again.

The rules of logic are human inventions ... they have little bearing outside of human discussion.

ptge wrote: »

You see, if the law of non-contradiction is merely a human invention, then you should have no problem with my contradciting you, based on a new law of logic which says 'contradictions are cool.' Now, that's absurd!

None what so ever. But I wouldn't use your rules of logic, and I doubt anyone else would either. But by all means you keep using them.

Either way neither "rules of logic" have much bearing on how defining how the real world must operate.

robindch

ptge wrote: »

tell me how you know that your ability to reason is valid?

I'm not. What everybody here, including me, is telling you is that your argument is circular and therefore does not meet at least one of the criteria necessary to produce a valid, reliable conclusion. This logical framework was first proposed by Aristotle centuries before Jesus arrived and it's the framework that people here are using.

BTW, I note that although you say that god produced "logic", Jesus himself, and the bible in general, says nothing at all about either logic, or its creation, and I'm wondering where you draw this clearly unbiblical teaching from.

Anyhow, if you wish to use some form of non-Aristotelian logic where self-supporting reasoning is permitted, then you should really make it clear that this is what you're doing.

ptge

Akrasia wrote: »

Nonsense in that the words you are saying don't make any sense. You're using the fact that your arguments are inconsistent and circular as though the rubbishness of your 'logic' is somehow a proof that god exists.

Not at all, I am asking you to account for the logic that you are attempting to hold my argument to. You see, you assume that universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic exist, but you cannot account for them according to your worldview. You use my worldview, to argue against my worldview, hardly makes sense now does it?

Akrasia wrote: »

As has been said over and over and over again, Logic is a human invention.

And I have pointed out the nonsense of such a view. If this were the case, contradcitions could have been true before humans 'invented' logic and, if logic is a human invention, humans could invent a new law of logic in which contradictions in reasoning are 'true.' Also, you would need to demonstrate how a human invention applies universally, and how you know this. For example, does logic apply to our discussion? If so why, if not, why not?

Akrasia wrote: »

Logic did not come from god, it came from thousands of years of philosophical development, where people arguing with each other identified a number of devices that can
be used to distort meaning and make false claims, so we (not god) came up with the 'rules of logic' to stop the exact kinds of 'reasoning' that you use.

Did the people who developed logic, use logic to develope it??? And you people are the ones accusing me of circularity!?!

Akrasia wrote: »

Logic clearly isn't a perfect device because people like you know enough about it to abuse it, but are too ignorant to recognise your own shortcomings. If God created 'absolute logic', then there wouldn't be these discussions on the nature of logic because we would all have an innate grasp of it.

How do you know this? (By the way, we do, yet <<ahem>> some suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1: 18-21)

Akrasia wrote: »

here "How do you know? You are assuming the validity of your senses, your reasoning, your memory and those laws in order to come to this conclusion." http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56090502&postcount=46

Alright, a little intellectual honesty please, you said "You declare the empirical senses as unreliable," Where in that post do I do that??? I simply say that you assume them to be reliable, but you cannot justify their reliability, I have never once said that they are unreliable.

Akrasia wrote: »

and here "Well, I'm not since I believe that God can reveal things to us entirely apart from our senses, reasoning, and memory, but still, I can account for their reliability as I know them to be a gift from God. How do you know that your senses, reasoning, and memory are reliable?"
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56102023&postcount=91

Again, thanks for making my point, nowhere in that post do I 'declare empirical senses as unreliable.'

Akrasia wrote: »

I assume you were using the cartesian argument that our senses are fallable. The only other argument you might have been making is that our senses are only reliable because god makes them so, which would be a ludicrous statement because our senses are blatantly unreliable in some circumstances.

Again, you are not even close to arguing with me or my website, but let me ask you this, how do you know that your senses, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are reliable?

Akrasia wrote: »

when you said god revealed things in a way you know it to be true. Your arguments are so useless you don't even know what you're saying yourself.

Useless eh? Please demonstrate how God could not reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them or certain.

Akrasia wrote: »

So you're saying human senses are infallable?

Never said that.

Akrasia wrote: »

Or that your 'innate' sense of god is fallable?

Huh?!? I'm starting to suspect drugs. I never said anything about an 'innate sense' of God.

Akrasia wrote: »

You have never described how exactly 'god' revealed himself to you in a way you can be 100% certain it's true. If you say 'the bible' you're looking for a smack in the face.

I said that I do not know how God does many things, but I do discuss different types of revelation on my website. Not all revelation comes through the Bible, but it confirms other revelations. Still you have not even come close to demonstrating that God could not revleal things to us through the Bible, and our senses, in such a way that we can know them to be certain.

Not that I expect an anwser, but perhaps you could tell us how it is possible for you to know anything, according to your worldview?

Cheers,

Sye

ptge

Akrasia wrote: »

No, its a thought experiment, and as an experiment, it has just as much evidence for it as your divine 'worldview'.

The floor is yours. Please present your evidence.

Akrasia wrote: »

Btw, belief has nothing to do with truth.

I realize this. So, please tell us what you know to be true according to your worldview, and how you know it.

Akrasia wrote: »

And where did you get your worldview? If the laws of logic and morality and all that stuff apply universally, then why don't they apply to god? If they don't apply to god, then they don't apply universally

The laws of logic, and morality, are a reflection of God's nature, they do not apply to God, they are who God is.

Akrasia wrote: »

And if we can be certain that its true, why don't I believe in him?

That's the point, you do, yet you suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1: 18-21).

Cheers,

Sye

ptge

Wicknight wrote: »

Logic is simply a set of rules that humans have devised.

Alright, so lets say that someone developes a law of logic which states that contradcitions are true. Which law would be valid, that law, or the law of non-contradiction. Which law should we use to arrive at truth, and why?

Wicknight wrote: »

By the "standard" of the "problem of induction", see Karl Popper for more.

The classic example of this is "I've only ever seen white swans, therefore all swans must be white". This is an inductive statement based on the limited experience of the person making the statement. You can't say it is true because the person has not rules out the possibility that it is there lack or experience that is the reason, and it turns out it isn't true (there are black swans)

This is not my argument.

Wicknight wrote: »

Your search for a logical reason to believe in God is certainly evidence of that.

Huh, I do not need a logical reason to believe in God, I am simply demostrating the absurdity of denying belief in Him.

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem is that your desire to believe in God is leading you to make unsupported jumps, that appear to be based on blind faith.

Well, lets see who is actually making the blind leap. Please tell us how you know that your ability to reason is valid?

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you should read the sentence again.

The rules of logic are human inventions ... they have little bearing outside of human discussion.

Perhaps you should read that post again. I contradcited you, and your objection to it here, shows that you beleive that the law of non-contradcition applies to my response. QED.

Cheers,

Sye

robindch

ptge wrote: »

I have never once said that they are unreliable.

Hmm... the captain of the Titanic may wish to take that one up with you.

ptge wrote: »

The atheist can't find God, for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.

I think it would be fairer to say:

some guy wrote:

An atheist doesn't believe in the christian god for the same reason that a christian doesn't believe in Zeus.

Comparing atheists to thieves is unlikely to win you much support with either group.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ptge wrote: »

Perhaps you should read that post again. I contradcited you, and your objection to it here, shows that you beleive that the law of non-contradcition applies to my response. QED.

DOn't know what I'm doing back here...but anyway.

You did not contradict him. To contradict, you need to form a solid logical argument which specifically excludes that which is argued. You did not do that.

And writing QED completely out of context really doesn't strengthen your argument.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Why don't you compromise a bit for us inferior minds and present us proofs of the following statements argued rigorously and within the frameworks of academically acceptable logic:
-[Absolute Truth Exists]
-[Absolute Truth Exists]=>[God Exists]

or even more generally
-[X is true]
-[X is true]=>[God exists]

ptge

robindch wrote: »

Hmm... the captain of the Titanic may wish to take that one up with you.

I have never said that they are reliable or that they are not reliable, all I am suggesting is that one cannot account for their reliability, to any degree, apart from God.

robindch wrote: »

I think it would be fairer to say:

Nope, denying the existence of Zeus does not undermine logic, denying the existence of God does.

robindch wrote: »

Comparing atheists to thieves is unlikely to win you much support with either group.

Well, I am only comparing the reasoning, but hey, life is not a popularity contest

Cheers,

Sye

Zombrex

ptge wrote: »

Alright, so lets say that someone developes a law of logic which states that contradcitions are true. Which law would be valid, that law, or the law of non-contradiction.

Both are valid within their own set of rules. Two different rules systems, two different systems of rules.

ptge wrote: »

Which law should we use to arrive at truth, and why?

Again both. Both would be "true" for the system you are using them with. True, with relation to logic, simply means one followed the defined rules.

ptge wrote: »

This is not my argument.

It appears to be based on both your posts here and your website.

If it isn't your argument then can you present your argument.

ptge wrote: »

Huh, I do not need a logical reason to believe in God, I am simply demostrating the absurdity of denying belief in Him.

You aren't doing a great job

ptge wrote: »

Well, lets see who is actually making the blind leap. Please tell us how you know that your ability to reason is valid?

You keep using the term "valid" as if that means something on its own.

Nothing is valid by itself, valid means something correctly adheres to a set of rules or standards. You can't tell if something is valid or not unless you first know what rules are being referred to.

So to avoid confusion, valid in relation to what exactly.

ptge wrote: »

Perhaps you should read that post again. I contradcited you, and your objection to it here, shows that you beleive that the law of non-contradcition applies to my response. QED.

You didn't contradict me, you wrote the opposite to what I wrote. I didn't object to the contradiction, I objected to you misrepresenting my position.

But anyway, I assume the point you were trying to make is that within logic you can't have contradiction. A cannot equal the opposite if A

The point you are (still) missing is that this holds only for the system you are working under, only for the rules we are working under.

It holds for the English language because the English language has an agreed set of rules and meaning. It holds for Aristotelian logic (as Robin points out) because Aristotelian logic has an agreed set of rules and meaning.

You seem to really having trouble with this point. These are systems of though, developed by humans, to facilitate human discourse and thought. They have little meaning outside of that.

You seem to think that "valid" means something universally. It doesn't. Valid only means something within the context of the system of rules you are working under.

Formal language is a form of logic. The sentence

Je m'appelle Wicknight

is not valid English. It is valid French. You can't say that sentence is valid or invalid without knowing within what set of rules you are comparing it to. The logical structure of the sentence may be valid French while being completely invalid English.

And you certainly don't need God to do either.

rockbeer

ptge wrote: »

Um, except the encoders, which does not make them universal.

The encoders are imperceptible to us and can only be deduced through necessity, just as god is imperceptible to us and can only be deduced through necessity.

ptge wrote: »

I know about them, based on my worldview, you would have to tell us how knowledge of them can be gained according to your worldview.

My worldview makes them inevitable since without them nothing could be proved.

ptge wrote: »

Ah, so this is just wild specualtion, and not what you believe. Really, I do not have time to refute a worldview that neither of us believe.

And there's the nub. In the end it comes down to belief, not proof. Your assertion was that you have proved the existence of god. I counter by saying that god is indistinguishable in every way from a different entity that is not god.

Your only counter argument is that your god is more viable because you believe in it.

Perhaps you could show me the logic that demonstrates how belief=proof.

If you were an honest person, at this point you'd admit you were wrong and remove your 'proof' from your web site.

In your words, I'm not holding my breath.

ptge wrote: »

Again though, your scenario does not give us universal laws of logic, since they do not necessarily apply universally.

This is pure sophistry. They may not apply in a space-time continuum of which we have no knowledge. Then again, they may.

My universal laws are universal: they apply throughout our universe.

Do your 'universal' laws apply to god?
If not then they are not universal.
If so then they are greater than god. And how can that be?

Your logic leads to the ineluctable conclusion that god does not exist.

ptge wrote: »

Well, one thing is certain then, you cannot account for the laws of logic without positting something which 'looks' exactly like the Christian concept of God.

And you, my friend, cannot account for the laws of logic without positing a supernatural being that 'looks' exactly like a sophisticated computer program.

ptge wrote: »

Problem is, you have yet to tell us how you know about this version of God.

It is not a 'version of god'. Unless a team of computer geeks is a version of god.

I know about the outerverse because it has been revealed to me in ways that I know to be a gift from the developers.

(Do you see how ridiculous it sounds yet? I do hope you're getting infuriated with me. Now you know how annoying it is trying to have a rational debate with a christian who declares their beliefs to be based on anything other than faith. The only difference between us is that you actually believe your speculative notions. This, as has been pointed out by others, has no bearing whatsoever on the truth. The really annoying thing about certain people of faith is that you think it does.)

ptge wrote: »

If you care to tell us how you know your scenario to be true, the floor is yours. I am much more interested in what you actually believe though, since, as I said, I do not have the time to refute worldviews, neither of us believe. How do you account for universal, abstract, unchanging laws?

This is a shameless and pathetically transparent attempt to move the goalposts from logic to faith. If you claim to have proof of god's existence you must be prepared to refute scenarios that are equally plausible. I don't have to account for anything - what I believe is not the issue here. (I will say, though, I believe my scenario to be precisely as probable as yours). You have declared you have logical proof of god's existence. The onus is on you to disprove my scenario with a logical argument that would not apply to god.

Now... once again, how can you prove I'm wrong?

ptge

Sean_K wrote: »

DOn't know what I'm doing back here...but anyway.

You did not contradict him. To contradict, you need to form a solid logical argument which specifically excludes that which is argued. You did not do that.

I said the opposite of what he said, hence, the contradiction. By the way, by what standard do you lay out the rules of logical argumentation, and why do they apply to me?

Sean_K wrote: »

And writing QED completely out of context really doesn't strengthen your argument.

It was entirely in context. I suggested that if he objected to my contradcition, it would imply that he believes that the law of non-contradiction applied to my statement. He objected, which demonstrated the fallacy of his position.

Cheers,

Sye

Zombrex

ptge wrote: »

It was entirely in context. I suggested that if he objected to my contradcition, it would imply that he believes that the law of non-contradiction applied to my statement. He objected, which demonstrated the fallacy of his position.

I do believe the "law of non-contradiction" applied to your statement, because you are using ENGLISH. :rolleyes:

ptge

Sean_K wrote: »

Why don't you compromise a bit for us inferior minds and present us proofs of the following statements argued rigorously and within the frameworks of academically acceptable logic:
-[Absolute Truth Exists]
-[Absolute Truth Exists]=>[God Exists]

My website asks whether or not one believes in the existence of absolute truth, and demonstrates how denial of same is self-refuting. The existence of absolute truth proves the existence of God, by the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview accounts for absolute truth, and Christianity does.

Sean_K wrote: »

or even more generally
-[X exists]
-[X exists]=>[God exists]

This is not my argument.

Cheers,

Sye

ptge

Wicknight wrote: »

I do believe the "law of non-contradiction" applied to your statement, because you are using ENGLISH. :rolleyes:

Um, so if I said it in French it would not apply???

Zombrex

ptge wrote: »

Um, so if I said it in French it would not apply???

Pretty sure it applies in French as well.

There are languages (mostly theoretical if I remember correctly from college) where it actually doesn't apply. If you want to use them go ahead

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ptge wrote: »

My website asks whether or not one believes in the existence of absolute truth, and demonstrates how denial of same is self-refuting. The existence of absolute truth proves the existence of God, by the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview accounts for absolute truth, and Christianity does.

Ok, forget your website for a second and talk us through the logic (rigorously please).

You can tackle either statement first, either that [Absolute Truth Exists], or that [Absolute Truth exists] implies [god exists].

And for the love of god, make it somewhat academic.

Feel free to rigorously derive a new system of logic if you want.

This is not my argument.

I'm affording you the freedom to stray away from the concept of absolute truth, if it makes your argument any easier, so you can choose to argue that something which is, implies the existance of god.

So look at it like this:
-[X is true]
-[X is true]=>[God exists]
where X is an arbitrary condition of your choosing (i.e. it could be the statement "absolute truth exists").

I think that's more than reasonable.

ptge

Wicknight wrote: »

Both are valid within their own set of rules. Two different rules systems, two different systems of rules.

Again both. Both would be "true" for the system you are using them with. True, with relation to logic, simply means one followed the defined rules.

Can your car be in the parking lot and not in the parking lot at the same time and in the same way. If yes, why, and if not, why not?

Wicknight wrote: »

So to avoid confusion, valid in relation to what exactly.

Reality. When you come to a conclusion, how to you know that it is valid in relation to reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

But anyway, I assume the point you were trying to make is that within logic you can't have contradiction. A cannot equal the opposite if A

The point you are (still) missing is that this holds only for the system you are working under, only for the rules we are working under.

Where does the law of non-contradcition not apply?

Wicknight wrote: »

It holds for the English language because the English language has an agreed set of rules and meaning. It holds for Aristotelian logic (as Robin points out) because Aristotelian logic has an agreed set of rules and meaning.

Is this agreement universal, if so, how do you know this and when was the meeting?

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to really having trouble with this point. These are systems of though, developed by humans, to facilitate human discourse and thought. They have little meaning outside of that.

The problem is, 'sytems of thought' are in no way law-like, such as the laws of logic. How does what one human thinks, have any bearing on what another human thinks. What if they disagree, who is right?

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to think that "valid" means something universally. It doesn't. Valid only means something within the context of the system of rules you are working under.

And under what system is that true??? Better yet, under what system is that not true???

Wicknight wrote: »

Formal language is a form of logic. The sentence

Je m'appelle Wicknight

is not valid English. It is valid French. You can't say that sentence is valid or invalid without knowing within what set of rules you are comparing it to. The logical structure of the sentence may be valid French while being completely invalid English.

Problem is, language is not universal, logic is.

Wicknight wrote: »

And you certainly don't need God to do either.

Perhaps you could tell us then, how it is possible for you to know anything according to your worldview.

Cheers,

Sye

rockbeer

ptge wrote: »

No other worldview accounts for absolute truth, and Christianity does.

Er, mine does.

Edit: ptge, have you heard of quantum mechanics?

Zombrex

ptge wrote: »

My website asks whether or not one believes in the existence of absolute truth, and demonstrates how denial of same is self-refuting.

It is not self-refuting at all, you are simply confusing two similar sounding but different concepts. The statement that absolute truth isn't universal is a meta-description of the universe. It is not the same thing as an absolute truth.

Don't feel bad, a lot of people make this mistake.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ptge wrote: »

Can your car be in the parking lot and not in the parking lot at the same time and in the same way. If yes, why, and if not, why not?

That's a silly argument as it's entirely conceivable that a car maybe parked halfway into the parking lot. So you need to reform your logic, for example if we say:
-The car is wholly in the parking lot
and the negation:
-The car is not wholly inside of the parking lot

The law of excluded middle applies to this statement, so a car cannot be wholly in the parking lot and not wholy in the parking lot at the same time.

Mark Hamill

ptge wrote: »

Read my posts, will you. Circular logic cannot work for any argument where you start off with no idea at all about the outcome. Without bias for an outcome, you cannot use that outcome to make the starting premise that the outcome relies on.
Why not?

Are you even reading my post? My post contains the answer.

ptge wrote: »

I don't pretend to understand how God works, but I do discuss different forms of revelation on my site. The fact that some people disagree about revelation though, does not mean that nobody is right.

Doesn't mean anybody is right either.

ptge wrote: »

I do not question their senses, I question how they justify assuming their validity.

You said: How do you know? You are assuming the validity of your senses, your reasoning, your memory and those laws in order to come to this conclusion. So if the persons senses, reason etc are invalid then the conclusion is wrong. In questioning a conclusion based on senses, reasoning etc that may not be valid (in your opinion) you are questioning those senses and reasoning.

ptge wrote: »

The only way anyone can know anything, by His revelation.

Do you think you are special?
Nope.

If you are not special then why is your revelation more valid than the revelation of atheists/non-christians who had revelations about there being no/other gods?

ptge wrote: »

Logic and reason, require both 'truth' and 'knowledge,' neither of which can be accounted for apart from God.

Knowledge comes from learning, a human process and truth has nothing to do with god, if god was about truth, then all would know in a definite way why we are here.

Akrasia

ptge wrote: »

Not at all, I am asking you to account for the logic that you are attempting to hold my argument to. You see, you assume that universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic exist, but you cannot account for them according to your worldview. You use my worldview, to argue against my worldview, hardly makes sense now does it?

I never 'assumed' that universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic exist. I said logic is a human invention. It is based on some fundamental principles, but these fundamental principles arise because of the way we perceive the universe. We say something can not be two mutually exclusive states at the same time, because from our experience, up to now, that has always been the case. Logic flows from our interpretation of what things are possible and what forms of reasoning are valid. Our logic does not dictate any of those properties.

You keep talking about 'the law of non contradiction' as though it requires a god to enforce it. You have never demonstrated non contradiction couldn't simply be a fundamental property of existence simply because it can be no other way. (although with quantum physics, it appears like it can be possible for matter to exist in 3 states at the same time, so we might have to re-examine what we consider to be possible or impossible)

And I have pointed out the nonsense of such a view. If this were the case, contradcitions could have been true before humans 'invented' logic and, if logic is a human invention, humans could invent a new law of logic in which contradictions in reasoning are 'true.'

Bollox. Humans invented logic as a way of reasoning based on how we perceive the universe. The universe came first, the laws of physics came first(before we even invented the words laws and physics, before the first life form ever formed on earth to appreciate those laws), logic came afterwards, and any form of logic that permitted multiple contradictory explanations to all be true would never have been widely accepted and would have died out.

Also, you would need to demonstrate how a human invention applies universally, and how you know this. For example, does logic apply to our discussion? If so why, if not, why not?

Logic certainly doesn't apply to your parts of the discussion other than your provision of textbook examples of logical fallacies.

The human invention of logic does not 'apply universally' in any sense that it affects physical reality. Logic was invented to help explain reality, not to create reality. It applies to the process of reason, because it allows us to identify common tricks and mistakes, and to formulate coherent theories in a reasonably scientific way (if used correctly)

Did the people who developed logic, use logic to develope it??? And you people are the ones accusing me of circularity!?!

They built on previous versions of logic to expand on it, just like any scientific process. They didn't start off with fully formed logic, they began with first principles of what we believe we know about the universe. The principles were tested and refined to get rid of the bits that don't work.

How do you know this? (By the way, we do, yet <<ahem>> some suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1: 18-21)

Its not up to me to disprove that logic is perfect eternal and divine, its up to you to prove that it is, and quoting passages from the bible is certainly not going to accomplish that.

Alright, a little intellectual honesty please, you said "You declare the empirical senses as unreliable," Where in that post do I do that??? I simply say that you assume them to be reliable, but you cannot justify their reliability, I have never once said that they are unreliable.

Intellectual honesty? I never said I assume them to be reliable, in fact, I said the opposite.

Again, thanks for making my point, nowhere in that post do I 'declare empirical senses as unreliable.'

So what were you saying? Nothing at all? A bit like the rest of your points

Again, you are not even close to arguing with me or my website, but let me ask you this, how do you know that your senses, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are reliable?

I don't, Our senses are limited and vulnerable to manipulation and error. Anyone who has ever watched a magic trick knows that what you think you see isn't always what's really going on.

You're desperately trying to get me to say I do think they are reliable so you can say 'well, god is what makes them reliable'. You're reverting to the pathetic form of 'reason' you used in your quiz. False dichotomy "Either absolute truth exists or absolute truth doesn't exist, choose one."

Well here's a similar kind of question. Choose one.
"I always lie" or "I never lie" It can't be the first one, because if i always lie then I'm lying when I make that statement and so I mustn't always lie after all, according to your 'logic' it 'must' be the second option. "I never lie", but thats a false dichotomy, nobody 'never lies, ever' there should be a third option, I sometimes lie, and I sometimes tell the truth" which is blatantly absent from your 'proof'

Useless eh? Please demonstrate how God could not reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them or certain.

don't be ridiculous. That's so childish "I know you are but what am I"
You are the person making the assertion that you can prove god exists, you are the person responsible for defending that claim. It is irrelevant what I believe

Never said that.

no, you're refusing to take a position.

Huh?!? I'm starting to suspect drugs. I never said anything about an 'innate sense' of God.

You said you knew for certain that god exists. You have yet to explain how you can be so certain.

I said that I do not know how God does many things,

And yet you're certain that he does them. riiiight

but I do discuss different types of revelation on my website. Not all revelation comes through the Bible, but it confirms other revelations. Still you have not even come close to demonstrating that God could not revleal things to us through the Bible, and our senses, in such a way that we can know them to be certain.

you said that he definitely does. It is not up to me to prove that he 'could not'.

Not that I expect an anwser, but perhaps you could tell us how it is possible for you to know anything, according to your worldview?

I'm with socrates on this one. The only thing I know, is that I know nothing. We can know nothing for sure, we can make educated guesses and some things are closer to certainty than others (things that are testable and scientific and backed up by our own experiences) but ultimately, we can not have any certainty over anything. This means I can not know for certain that God doesn't exist, but that is not a proof that he does (|I don't know for certain that unicorns or the Loch Ness monster don't exist, but that does not mean that they do exist)

robindch

ptge wrote: »

I have never said that they are reliable or that they are not reliable, all I am suggesting is that one cannot account for their reliability, to any degree, apart from God.

Unless you happen to subscribe to the findings of modern biology. By any chance, are you a creationist too?

Mark Hamill

ptge wrote: »

You use my worldview, to argue against my worldview, hardly makes sense now does it?

THERE ARE NO WORLDVIEWS ACCORDING TO YOUR WEBSITE!, so why do you keep bringing them up! On your site you say (steps 6a/b/c) that laws of math/science/logic/morality are immaterial, universal & unchanging, this means that only one "worldview" is valid, the universal and unchangable one (that according to your site exists), "worldviews" that aren't universal, immaterial and unchanging then (according to your site) don't work or really even exist.
The fact that you cant even argue according to your own circular logic shows you don't know what you are talking about.

ptge wrote: »

As has been said over and over and over again, Logic is a human invention.
And I have pointed out the nonsense of such a view. If this were the case, contradictions could have been true before humans 'invented' logic

Contradictions did exist before humans created logic, logic is just a way of looking at a situation, its just a way to see the "path of least resistance" between a starting point and the conclusion. This is true because just because there is a logical way to do something, doesn't mean its the only way it can be done, or the only way it will be done. Saying its nonsense by your reasoning is like saying bacteria didn't exist until the first microsscope was invented.

ptge wrote: »

if logic is a human invention, humans could invent a new law of logic in which contradictions in reasoning are 'true.'

Eh where did you get this nonsense? For logic to be logic, it has to make sense, if it doesn't its no longer logic. Justice is a human invention, but we can't come along and say justice is now punishing the family of those who do us wrong instead of those who do us wrong as this will never be justice (according to a universe with definite universal unchanging laws of morality required by your proof on your website).

ptge wrote: »

Did the people who developed logic, use logic to develope it??? And you people are the ones accusing me of circularity!?!

The people who developed started with reasoning and experience and came up with a crude logic. This they have refined over time to make the sharp logic we have know. They did the first thing to make the first diamond drills: they used natural uncut diamonds with sharp edges to cut other diamonds (diamond is the only thing that cuts diamond) into better (more useful for cutting) diamonds.

ptge wrote: »

Useless eh? Please demonstrate how God could not reveal things to us in such a way that we can know them or certain.

Please demonstrate how someone with a lot of wishful thinking and the desire to feel more important than everyone else, might not just want to feel that something was revealed to him.

Zombrex

ptge wrote: »

Can your car be in the parking lot and not in the parking lot at the same time and in the same way. If yes, why, and if not, why not?

Possibly. Studies of quantum physics suggest it can.

ptge wrote: »

Reality. When you come to a conclusion, how to you know that it is valid in relation to reality.

I don't.

ptge wrote: »

Where does the law of non-contradcition not apply?

In an logic system that doesn't contain a law of non-contradiction.

In fact proponents of Dialetheism argue that the law of non-contradiction doesn't even apply for classical formal logic (ie Aristotelian logic)

ptge wrote: »

Is this agreement universal, if so, how do you know this and when was the meeting?

If by "universal" you mean every human agrees with it, no.

ptge wrote: »

The problem is, 'sytems of thought' are in no way law-like, such as the laws of logic. How does what one human thinks, have any bearing on what another human thinks. What if they disagree, who is right?

Right in relation to what?

They are right in their logic if the statement the propose follows the rules of the system they are claiming to use.

"Right", just like "valid", has no meaning unless it is in the context of some system or set of rules. To say if something is right or not one must know the system that you are comparing to.

ptge wrote: »

And under what system is that true???

Under the system of English.

"Valid" is an English word, derived from the French word "valide"

ptge wrote: »

Better yet, under what system is that not true???

Of the top of my head, Turkish. In Turkish the word "valide" means something completely different to what it means in English, it is used in the term "valide sultan" which means queen mother.

ptge wrote: »

Problem is, language is not universal, logic is.

Neither language nor logic are universal. The validity of statements within one apply only to the system of language, or the system of logic you are using.

When you say "logic" what you appear to be discussing is classical logic, aka Aristotelian logic. There are other types of logic, such as multi-value logic (aka "fuzzy logic") where there are more than two truth values (ie more than simply true or false).

A statement in classical logic can have a different meaning in fuzzy logic. The validity of a statement in classical logic is not universal among different systems of logic.

ptge wrote: »

Perhaps you could tell us then, how it is possible for you to know anything according to your worldview.

It isn't possible for me to "know" anything about the universe around me to a high degree, or perfect degree, of certainty. I'm not after all a god.

Standman

PTGE, you really aren't making any sense. You have continuously used circular logic to "proove" the existence of god, and then you accuse other people of using circular logic thereby discounting their argument. So when you use circular logic that's perfectly fine, but when you think we are using it there's something wrong with that?

"The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't proove anything."

If that is your "proof", using your logic I can make up anything and say that it is true and if anyone argues that I am being illogical then I can just say "Why do those rules of logic apply to me?", therefore dodging any reality based reply to the question.
You also seem to believe that contradiction is logically permissable. So it is completely logical and true to say "God does exist but he doesn't exist"?

Anyway, why are your rules of logic applicable to us? You seem to have your own form of logic where you can contradict yourself and use circular reasoning and still have a logical argument. It may be true for you, PTGE, but if you want to convince other people of the proof of god's existence, and I assume that's the purpose of your site, then you have to obey our rules of logic whether you like it or not.

So, you are free to make up and use your own logical rules if you like, but don't expect anyone else to take you seriously when you do because the only person who this makes sense to is you.

Anyway, I don't believe for one second that you use this form of logic in your everyday life, and you are blatantly using this as a defence for something that is indefencable.

For example, if a friend of yours took your car without asking you and you were very annoyed about it, you would obviously want to know why he did it. If he were to say "I took your car without asking you because I took your car and I didn't ask you first", by your rules of logic this should be a perfectly good explanation. It's stupid because you are no more informed than you were before you asked the question, you have been given no reason why he took the car.

Another example would be if you were having your friends over for dinner, and they told you beforehand that they only eat chicken. Of course, you being a good host you whip up some kind of chicken based dish in order to please your friends. But when your friends come over and see what you prepared, they suddenly state,"Oh, I don't eat chicken". Again according to your logic there is nothing wrong with that since you think contradiction can be a rational stance.

If there was a man on trial for murder that he is actually guilty of, using your logic all the proof he would have to give would be to say "I didn't kill that guy because I didn't kill that guy".

These rules apply to any proof of god's existence in the exact same way as they apply to any of these examples, and to say otherwise means that you are either being unbelievably ignorant or just completely stupid.

JC 2K3

ptge wrote: »

That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.

What faith? How does saying you don't know why we exist or why the world is why it is constitute having faith in something?

Akrasia

JC 2K3 wrote: »

What faith? How does saying you don't know why we exist or why the world is why it is constitute having faith in something?

I think he's just working through the complete compendium of standard 'arguments' against atheists.

robindch

ptge wrote: »

That's the problem with you atheists, you live on faith.

hmmm... missed that one.

Anyhow, it's a slow day here where I am and having had the time to skip through some of ptge's postings, we can discover that at least one christian believes that:

1. Atheism is a faith position.(*)
2. Circular reasoning proves that a deity exists.
3. Reliable sensory input devices requires a deity to create them.
4. Aristotelian logic was not invented by Aristotle.
5. Pointing out that an argument is circular requires circular logic.
6. A deity can deliver a message which is incapable of being interpreted incorrectly.
7. Nothing can be known unless a deity makes it known.
8. At least one atheist is a deity.

Now, perhaps it's just me, but you come across as an amazingly confused human being. If I were you, I'd stick to web design and drop the logic. You're no good at it.

(*) Wasn't Faith Position a 70's porn actress?

The Mad Hatter

ptge wrote: »

Not at all, I am asking you to account for the logic that you are attempting to hold my argument to. You see, you assume that universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic exist, but you cannot account for them according to your worldview. You use my worldview, to argue against my worldview, hardly makes sense now does it?

I think I see part of your problem here. Logic and existence are not the same thing. Before we had devised the rules to make logical arguments, existence still existed, in just the same way that it does now.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think I see part of your problem here. Logic and existence are not the same thing. Before we had devised the rules to make logical arguments, existence still existed, in just the same way that it does now.

That is a good point. The rules of logic are a human cognitive device. Existence was around for billions of years before humans arrived on the scene

I think the problem is that ptge is coming at all this the wrong way round. Systems like logic are attempts by humans to understand existence, but existence or the universe are under no obligation to actually be like the way we attempt to view or model them.

The example is ptge law of non-contradiction. We naturally view the world as represented by this "law", but the universe itself is under no obligation to actually hold to it, as the wacky world of quantum physics demonstrates.

He is coming at this from the other end, stating that because we have these systems the natural world must work the same way that we model it working. That doesn't hold, but interestingly it does seem to be a way of viewing the world that is quite connected with religious following.