Logical Proof for the existence of God? | Religion Spirituality | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Logical Proof for the existence of God?
July 14, 2010
3:51 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Image Enlarger

I'm still in the middle of deciphering this..

Ax means axiom
Th means theorem, something derivable from steps above it.
Df means definition.
Box means necessarily
Diamond means possibility
Upside down A means "for all"
Backwards E means "there exists"
Carrot ^ means "and"
The bidirectional arrows mean "if and only if."
Arrow --> means if/then. A-->B means IF A then B.

The last line's conclusion is that it is necessary that something is God. I.e., it is necessary that there exists something, called x, such that G(x) where G(x) translates into x is God.

It would appear that this kinda hinges on Df 1 of G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic

"it is easy to grow crazy"

July 14, 2010
4:17 pm
Avatar
qmark
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1110
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It's all Greek to me.

July 14, 2010
4:33 pm
Avatar
humphreys
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2149
Member Since:
August 21, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If this proves that it is necessary that something is "God", isn't it important we need define what we mean by "God", first?

Maybe that's the important part of this logical proof, but I have no clue what any of that means.

If we define God to be a first cause, which is what I'm betting this proof is supposed to show, then fine, we've proved God, but only by defining "God" as something that may well be natural.

We can define gravity as God too, and then prove that a second God exists, but that doesn't bring us any closer to a proof of the kind of personal intelligence most religious people believe in.

I'm just speculating obviously, I can't make sense of the proof.

"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris

July 14, 2010
4:35 pm
Avatar
humphreys
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2149
Member Since:
August 21, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Where did this proof come from, by the way?

"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris

July 14, 2010
4:54 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

One of the users on my forum posted it. Asked him twice now where he found it. No answer. Maybe if I google modal logic + god I will get something.,..

Ah yes, one of the most important logicians of all time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... ical_proof

I think you already know which thing I believe God to be: reality.

My argument is much simpler. Two all-encompassing things are congruent, and both reality and anything worthy of the appellation "god" are all-encompassing.

Perhaps it's not useful to exchange one label for another. I see the answer to the question "what is God," as a discovery rather than a concoction. I don't see it as defining God; what I said to define God is that it must be all-encompassing, from which, I deduced that God must be reality.

This has no implications that this God is any particular God of some religion.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

July 14, 2010
6:34 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10236
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Humphrey, you couldn't even accept this scientific formula as the possible key to proving if God exists or not, without attacking and debunking it. Rejecting this formula at a glance is like rejecting the Bible at a glance. If it held the proof, its obvously so complex, it takes a lifetime to decifer it, which to me it the point of the formula. And you are the one who says science prooves everything, you didn't give one thought, to this being a real formula.

Thats why I say, no level of proof will ever satisfy you, nor any personal explanation from any individual, proven by your response to Bionic about Zeus. You wouldn;t even allow Bionic to tell what personal reasons led to believing again. You go immediatly into debuke mode, and you have that rejection stamp I mentioned a few weeks ago, working full time.

July 14, 2010
6:46 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Either way, it's difficult to accept something that isn't understood.

I don't necessarily accept this proof of God's existence since I don't fully understand it.. The wiki article tries to explain it..and it seems loosely based on Anselm's argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologica ... _argument'

The ontological argument was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) in the second chapter of his Proslogion.[13] Although he did not propose an ontological system, he was very much concerned with the nature of being. He distinguished necessary beings (those that must exist) from contingent beings (those that may exist, but whose existence is not necessary).

1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater
1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
2. Being is greater than not being
3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater.
4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable

Conclusion: If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists

I think that argument has at least one serious flaw.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

July 14, 2010
6:50 pm
Avatar
humphreys
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2149
Member Since:
August 21, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jeez greeney I think I made it pretty damn clear I was just speculating on what I was guessing the proof would refer to, going on other logical proofs I have seen.

Basically, it is absolutely impossible to prove a personal God through a logical formula, even the Christians will agree with me on that!

"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris

July 14, 2010
6:51 pm
Avatar
humphreys
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2149
Member Since:
August 21, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

By the way greeney, this is not science, it is philosophy. I trust you know the difference?

"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris

July 14, 2010
7:04 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10236
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Its all about your attitude Humphrey.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
55 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10236

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24092

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8721

Posts: 123453

Newest Members:

Kerri, The all seeing eye, shekllavanesa, Davizeus, hong wei, Lana, JOE SLIGHT, Harley Munjo, Mann Spencer, Dreckz de Majid

Administrators: John Greenewald: 579, blackvault: 1776