On Proving God

Post Reply New Topic

Well,formal logic represent almost 1/4 of philosophical studies,at least in my case.
However,we also learn to check natural sentences,according to formal logical laws.



Yes,this is in accordance with De Morgan's laws.




Perhaps,but I don't think that can be driven from above.


As I remember(correctly) implication may be defined as [ ~ ( P & ~ Q ) ]<=>P=>Q




Ok,then...




I'm an Aspie,what do you expect?




Yes,it's incomplete, since ~(~P&Q)<=>(PV~Q),that includes conjunction between ~(~p&q)=> (pV~q) and (pV~q)=>~(~p&q).
But,never mind....




I don't think it's necessary,since we're not disagreeing about main issue,just over some logical formalities.
This was case of simple misunderstanding...

My reason is that your answers so often have no connection I can see to what I wrote, that this time I wanted to go through it one step at a time, in mind-numbing detail, so I can find out where the problem is. That would be far removed from the original subject of the thread. But because I anticipated your implied accusation that I would try to hide, I offered you a public forum. The offer still stands. Would you like a thread on translating from natural language into formal logical statements? I would be happy to send you a draft of the opening statement, so you can check whether I fairly represent your position.


I changed my mind about the likelihood of potential harm from overconfidence about the existence of some unspecified deity. I thought it would be only polite to state my reason. And I now agree more with you than before.


I thought in the context of Anselm's proof, greatness and perfection could be treated as synonymous. You assert that is not so. You are right if there is a difference between the two words that is relevant to Anselm's argument. If you are right, you should be able to tell me what that difference is.


I don't see how that affects the link between being greater than and existence. I think Gasking's argument is intended to undermine that link. Without that link, Anselm's proof collapses.

Alternatively, you can ignore that if the following reformulation of Gasking's argument meets your objection.
1. The greatest imaginable being must be able to do the greatest imaginable deed.
2. How great a deed is depends on both a) the outcome and (b) the ability of the being who does the deed.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the being, the greater the deed.
4. The greatest imaginable handicap for doing something would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we imagine a being who does the greatest imaginable deed while existing, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who does the greatest imaginable deed while not existing.
6. Therefore, the greatest imaginable being is one that does not exist.

The modified argument does not depend on God as the creator, or on anything that has actually been done. It only deals with what could conceivably be done. Would you accept this as an a priori argument?

If you think so,then why do you debate with me in the first place?





Well,I explained you what were your logical errors,and shown what exact errors have you committed.
And I think that my answer was long enough.

If you cannot see(or don't want to see) what exact error this was,then this is your personal problem,not mine.



Well,we already are discussing in the public forum.




I have already did it,on this thread(more then it's necessary),so I don't understand what exactly do you want?

As you have already said:



Again,if you think so,why do you constantly want to debate with me?





This is nice to hear...for a change





You have already equated these two into your head,and you now want me to show you the difference....

But here you go:

http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/great/



http://www.english-test.net/toeic/vocab ... hp#perfect



Greatness is based on extension,while perfection is based on completion.



Anselm's formulation is just first version of Ontological argument,there are several versions of them.

Anselm deduced existence of God through idea of God (Greatest being).Being is something that exist.
Idea of God exist subjectively(yet it exist as such),but it necessary implies something beyond pure subjectivity,since 'greatest' cannot be limited by pure subjectivity,but necessary implies something beyond subjectivity as such.
Therefore greatest being must be something that is not limited by pure human subjectivity,since then it would not be greatest.Since greatest is without limitation,and that we can deduce from concept of 'greatest'.
Thus idea of greatest being implies necessary something beyond pure human subjectivity.

This is A Priori conclusion from greatest being,since greatest being cannot be limited as idea,but necessary implies something that EXIST beyond subjectivity.

This is problem with Gasking:




We cannot deduce 'deed' from 'being'.

'Being' is something that exist,not something that does.

This is example of induction.
From greatest imaginable being we can only deduce its existing non-limitation,not 'greatest deed'.




This is logical contradiction with 'Greatest possible being'.Since on one hand you have greatest possible being,and on other hand his deed.
Then greatest possible being would be different thing from his deed,and therefore limited by his deed.If greatest possible being is limited by his deed,therefore it would not be greatest possible being.



But non-existence does not exist.Negation of existence is self-contradictory.
Since alternative of existence negate itself.

But nothing can negate greatest being,since its negation does not exist.



A being is something that exist(+).
To say that being(+) could not exist(-) is contradiction (+=-).

Something that does not exist cannot do any deed.So,we cannot conceive greatest being that does not exist.
Since its impossible to conceive something that does not exist.




This is not a priori,since we cannot deduce from greatest possible being greatest possible deed.Since from concept of being we can only deduce something that exist,not something that does.
Because,by definition being is something that exist,and by deduction we can only draw conclusion from that definition.'Greatest being' is being that is not limited,and that includes limitation of being subjective idea.Thats deduction,and necessary conclusion from that concept.

On other hand 'Greatest deed' is not necessary conclusion from 'Greatest being',and as such is not deductive,but inductive.
Greatest being could do greatest deed,but it also could not.

P.S

Gasking's argument is intended to be a parody of Ontological argument,not a serious argument against it.
Even Richard Dawkins admitted that in 'The God delusion'.
So,its funny that you presented this as some evidence against it.

But that is exactly my point. We agree that it doesn't belong here. If you want to discuss this topic, we can give it its own thread.


In this thread, I thought you were wrong to accuse Capriccio of a logical fallacy when there is more than one interpretation of his statement, and you had selected only one that, in isolation, would be fallacious. I tried to be polite about pointing out the omission. Your accusation was public, so my attempt at politely drawing your attention to the omission was also public. You obviously didn't see it as polite. If I had predicted your reaction, I would have done it all in private, to prevent the thread from being sidetracked as much as it has been. But if we can have a reasoned debate (preferably in its own thread) on the translation from natural language into formal logic, there might be something to learn.


The meaning you marked in bold has to do with physical size. How can you infer existence from that?

This is a good example where your answer looks to me like a non sequitur. I really don't know what physical size has to do with anything we discussed.


You chose from the meanings of "great" the one to do with being large in size. I don't see the connection between something being large in size and having to exist.


I didn't deduce it from being, I took it from the meaning of greatness, which I took as not having to do with large physical size. When people voted Winston Churchill as the greatest Briton, they didn't mean he was the tallest, or built like a Sumo wrestler. He is considered a great man because of his actions and because his actions are seen as not accidental but as being a reflection of his personal traits. Without his actions, or without a link between his actions and what he was, there would be no recognition of his greatness. That meaning of greatness, when taking to the superlative, becomes synonymous with perfection.


But that is exactly the assumption I made. My variation of Gasking's argument is based on the necessity of the greatest being's ability to do the greatest deed. It doesn't depend on what the greatest being chooses to do.

But all this was result of your attempt to formulate sentences according to flawed logical constructions,in attempt to show that my interpretation was incorrect.


Are you Capriccio?

I was not wrong to accuse Capriccio of logical fallacy,since formulation of his argument (as it is) was fallacious.I have just commented his sentence,how it was formulated.

You are not Capriccio,yet you have implied that there is more then one interpretation of his statement.

I have just formulated his statement(as he wrote it) into formal language to show what exactly is fallacious about it.
Since I already formulated it,then there is no need for another thread.


In attempt to show different interpretations,you have formulated even more fallacious statements then Capriccio,thus showing total lack of understanding even most basic logical laws.
Yet you claim something to be fallacious.

With statement "Iff P then Q",you would certainly fail logic exam.Since this is elementary error that shows lack of even rudimentary knowledge of logic.



Well,it would be much wiser for you to buy some books on logic,learn something and then join discussion about logical flaws.



Unfortunately,your 'pointing' and examples that you had shown only manifested your lack of knowledge on this subject.



I used word 'Extension'.'Big' doeas not mean necessary 'physically big'.
There are bigger and lesser sets in logic,yet sets as such are not physical,in same sense that there are greater and lesser numbers.

I do not infer existence from greatness,but from BEING.
'Greatest Being' implies greatest existence.

We cannot deduce existence from greatness.

Existence follows from being,not from 'greatest'.
I never said that existence follow from greatness,this is your own construction.


You seem to not understand many things.
Extension is not about just physical size.This is your own 'straw man'.



What I have marked states extension not just in physical sense.Its not about physical size only.

Indeed there is no connection between greatness and existence as such.
But,then again seems that you debate with your own thoughts,not mine.
And what is funny is your previous accusation:



You simply project unto me what you actually do.



Well,I didn't meant as something of physical size.And you cannot deduce deed from greatness.

Deed can be deduced from concept of doer or creator,not greatness.Again lack of understanding of what A Priori is.
A set of numbers is greater from another set because it have more elements within it,but this not imply that this set 'do' something.



So Churchill was the perfect Briton?





Ability is not necessity.
You are able to kill yourself,but this does not mean that you MUST kill yourself.

You have said:



And this is what you have wrote before:



This is,I believe 'Is -Ought' fallacy,although I could be wrong.

If you are able,this does not mean that you 'must' something.

I am sure there are fallacies in your descriptions of what I said. Some of them may be mine. Some of them are yours. For example, you turned what was P in my statement into Not P in your description. When I told you of the error, you declared it irrelevant and again misrepresented what I wrote. All your knowledge of logic doesn't help you if you mistranslate from my statements into formal logic. I offered you to go through it step by step. I can show you the reference I used to translate my meaning into a formal statement. Then the moment we get to a disagreement we can work out whether and where there is an error. If you don't want to, I am happy with that, too. I will not repeat my offer yet again.



And here is a nice example of the disconnect between my statement and your response:

I didn't say it was. I said a necessary element of greatness is the ability to do great deeds. That is something very different from ability being the same as necessity. What you disagree with has nothing to do with what I actually wrote.

How can you be sure the fallacies you find are mine when you make basic errors in interpreting what I say? That has been my point all along, and you have just demonstrated it for me. If you are unwilling to deal with that problem, I give up.

Apologies if someone said this already but

"3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the being, the greater the deed. "

This is not logical.

The greatest inventors weren't the most handicapped, if you try seeing the opposite angle of that particular (so called) rule. The greater the deed depends on who is looking at the deed, some might even see it as an abomination, some might see it as wonderful.

Truth has to come into it somewhere, but if we're going to define, we'll have to iron out all the loopholes and logical flaws in atheist arguments. Personally I think that an anti standpoint is fun for a while, but taking a positive, personal approach to the meaning of the word can work wonders to understanding the mystery of other human beings need for faith.

If me god means everything and everything is the universe and all the motion causing it to be and we're a tiny speck of that, all being vibration, you can't actually argue with it can you?

Yet I've used god in my own context, a cynical pantheist context, remember that when quoting or composing rules or limits.

Belief may manifest in physical form elsewhere? Maybe not? Does it make it less real if its all in the mind?

The statement is not supposed to mean that the more handicapped you are, the more you can do. It means that for the same outcome, the same result, the achievement is greater if there is a handicap. The greater the handicap, the greater the achievement, for the same outcome. It is a question of how far the outcome exceeds expectations. Putting it another way, the outcome would be an absolute measurement, but achievement is meant to be a relative measurement that compares outcome to expectation.

Here is another example. Would you be more impressed if this post came from a 30 year old or a 1 year old? The outcome is the same, the post you read, but if you find the same outcome more impressive for one of the two ages, then you find it a greater achievement for that age.

In the statement you cited, how great a deed is refers to the achievement, how far the outcome exceeds expectations.

Does the original argument make more sense if you treat it as a relative measurement?

You seem to have a talent for mis-applying principles of logic. Capriccio ISN'T denying the antecedent because he didn't say that because there's no proof, that god doesn't exist, he said if there is no proof, there's no reson to believe.

Hi, I haven't been around for a while since this thread has totally gone off the track. However, since this question is directly for me, I will answer.

Ragtime, I believe that God exists, is real, whether or not I believe in God. After all, God is the great, "I AM." I don't believe that God's existence can be proven or should be proven because to do so would create a paradox with the salvific nature of Faith.

If god exists and works within the confines of this universe, that would make the existence of god a scientific hypothesis and therefore subject to falsification/verification.



You have made an indictment against the "salvific nature of faith" with this comment. Christian salvation is based on "good cop, bad cop" psycology where the good cop is used to make a false confession by offering a better deal than the bad cop. it's a form of false dichotomy. Your statement proves the false dichotomy by admitting that evidence would destroy the illusion.

jfrmeister, let me just reiterate what I've said before for the record since this is a new thread where not everyone will be privy to our previous conversations. I do not believe that Science is a powerful enough philosophy of thought to determine what does and does not exist because it depends entirely on our limited ability to perceive. I am not willing to say that just because my body, even with the aid of modern technology, is not able to perceive something, therefore, it cannot exist.

Regarding your claim that I have somehow made a false dichotomy between Faith and Proof, I don't see how this dichotomy is false since I don't really see how there could be a third option. Either someone believes something with evidence or without evidence. What other option is there. I do think that Faith and Proof are mutually exclusive, which is why when a Christian touts his/her faith all around town and then proposes to prove God's existence, it seems to be very paradoxical.

This contains a clear absurdity: a non-existent being doing something. This is just silly. How can it be a great deed to do something which is nonsensical?

in point [2.] you seem to state by inference that the extraordinariness of the effort that goes into accomplishing a deed is a factor in determining its greatness. therefore, the greatness of a deed is relative to the abilities of the being accomplishing the deed?

I agree. I even think that's the point. And if the absurdity comes from an assumption also used by Anselm, then one of Anselm's assumptions is problematic. If the absurdity has a different origin, then Gasking's parody is irrelevant.

The absurdity shows up in premise 5, which is closely modeled on Anselm's argument. Anselm claims because it is greater to exist than not, the greatest being necessarily exists. Gasking takes a detour through the greatness of what the greatest being should be able to do, and comes to the conclusion that it is greater not to exist.

I think what you consider the defining characteristics of greatness, and whether they have anything to do with existence, is problematic.


Yes, though the argument is my reformulation of an argument by Gasking, so twoshots isn't to blame for anything that goes wrong.


Just to be sure I don't misremember something, I looked up the original poll question:

If it was the proof of some unspecified god, I (now, having changed my mind) see no problem. The only implication of the existence of an unspecified god is that it might be advisable to find out whether that god wants anything from you, and if yes, what that might be. If there is no way to find out, you can only hope that this god will not blame you for failing to do the impossible.

But this is a question about Christians proving God, so this must be specifically the Christian God, who makes specific demands of people and promises to reward only those who meet those demands, and to punish the rest. Then it would be kind to persuade others to meet those demands and so gain reward and avoid punishment. But if one of the demands is faith without proof, then proof would negate any benefit, and persuading others through proof would harm them, because they would lose the benefits of faith, as you said.

Under those circumstances, you can only hope to inspire others through the living example of the benefits of your faith.

Well, even if we imagine a nonexistent being having properties, as is necessary in some formulations of the ontological argument, this is not the same as imagining a nonexistent being actually doing something. It seems that I can make more sense of the notion "nonexistent pink unicorns" than I can "nonexistent unicorns which just kicked me in real life" no? That is, I think the ontological argument is at the least less absurd than Gasking's parody. I can imagine a concept floating around in idea space and conceive of it in one way or another, but to imagine something that is solely in idea space but was an agent in something that happened in the real world is simply a contradiction in terms.