On Proving God

Post Reply New Topic

I think the threat is better phrased as, "If you are a threat to me, I will kill you. However, if you are not a threat to me, I will not kill you". Thus
1. p=>q
2. ~p=>~q
3. Deny the consequent in 2 to get q=>p
4.( p=>q & q=>p) => (p<=>q)
Since I think my formulation of the threat is quite reasonable, and it is equivalent to a bi-conditional, we can conclude that a threat can be phrased as a bi-conditional.

However, I think this is entirely beside the point because claiming belief<=>proof is a preposterously strong claim about belief, which is not even contained in the nature of the concept "proof"

If you wouldn't found way to rationalize it,or if he cannot be proven,then why you ask for proves?



And who's definition is that? Yours?

Science research nature (physicality in particular),and therefore it cannot prove God.

In same manner as chemistry cannot prove music.



Well,since you mentioned 'heaven','hell' and punishment in general,because they are basically Biblical concepts.




But this is not "IFF" bi-conditional (what Gromit implied)....

Its modus tollens



Better formulation is:

P=>Q , ~Q
_________

~P


This is wrong step...

If you deny consequent you can only get ~P.If you get ~P,you can only introduce implication out of ~P,since you already negated P...like Q=>~P or ~Q=>~P.



No,and we can simply see this from formulation of your argument,since you claim this to be bi-conditional(although its not):
"If you are a threat to me, I will kill you. However, if you are not a threat to me, I will not kill you"

((A=>B)&(~A=>~B))

A=Threat to me
B=To Kill you
~=negation

This is not bi-conditional,if it's formulated like this.

Bi conditional would be:

"If you are a threat to me, I will kill you. However,I will not kill you if you are not threat to me."

((A=>B)&(~B=>~A))

True bi-conditional have form:
((A=>B)&(B=>A))

However,since second part of your bi-conditional is negation of first part,therefore they do not have same valuation.Therefore bi-conditional is incorrect.Since both parts of bi-conditional must be both true,or both false.But in here we have contradiction.

Main problem is that your argument was not bi-conditional at all,but modus tollens(conditional statement).I just formulated it as bi-conditional,since you claim this to be just that.

Modus Tollens,only works in conditional statements,not bi-conditional.

Last edited by Witt on 09 Jan 2008, 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Theoretically, if he exists, he would reside as part of the natural world, and be in the realm of science, wouldn't he? In what other way do you look for answers beyond science?

Witt: I am afraid I was unclear. (2) was taken as a premise rather than a theorem. It was the formal version of "if you are not a threat to me, I will not kill you", where p<=>"threat" and q<=>"kill you". Thus, ~p=>~q. (3) and (4) then demonstrate that this, taken with (1), is in fact logically equivalent to "I will kill you iff you are a threat to me".

You treat God as natural object.

Since science research nature,is nature something limited or unlimited?

Logic and Mathematics can answer A PRIORI about things that are beyond contemporary experience,since they do not need physical experience to verify its truthfulness,and yet their truths are applied to ALL possible experience.

Last edited by Witt on 09 Jan 2008, 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Its not logically equivalent,since you first fallaciously introduced P,which you negated before(as I explained above).First on one side you have one statement,and on other its negation.Therefore you don't have right to create bi-conditional,since both parts of bi-conditional have contradictory values.

"IFF" means that both statements have same meaning in logic sense(true or false).In your formulation one have different meaning from another,since second is negation of first.Therefore bi-conditional is incorrect.
Your statement was conditional(based on modus tollens),and then from conditional statement you created bi-conditional.This is not right.

P.S

"if you are a threat to me, I will kill you" is not equivalent to "if you are not a threat to me, I will not kill you" since second is negation of first.
Second statement is just a conclusion made from negation of consequence of first statement.
So, second statement is negation of first statement.
Therefore you cannot say that they are equivalent.

I'm always confused when people talk of religion as having "evidence" or "proof". Isn't the whole point of faith that it defies the logic you try to apply to it? It isn't potent because it's proven, it's potent because you believe in it, despite the lousy odds. So to answer your question, I guess you could try to prove Christianity, but it seems sort of irrelevant to me. Proof is more of a scientific thing, and religion and science, while they can be intertwined, are hardly interchangeable.

Actually, I have the perfect quote for this!

MORE: (Hotly) The Apostolic Succession of the Pope is - (Stops; interested)....Why, it's a theory, yes; you can't see it; can't touch it; it's a theory. (To Norfolk, very rapidly but calmly) But what matters to me is not whether it's true or not but that I believe it to be true, or rather, not that I believe it, but that I believe it...I trust I make myself obscure?

(From A Man For All Seasons, by Robert Bolt)

1. ~(p=>q) <=> p&(~q), because by definition (p=>q) <=> ~(p&~q) & ~~(p&~q)=> (p&~q)
2. (~p=>~q)<=>~(~p&q)=> (pV~q) by De Morgan's law
3. Suppose ~p&~q
4. Clearly, 3<=>~(~(p=>q))
5. But 3 is consistent with ~p=>~q because we have ~q
6. Thus, it is not true that ~(p=>q)<=>(~p=>~q)

trying to prove or disprove God is a waste of time.

what about finding solutions for problems? yes, it's better i know.




praised be the God.

How else can you treat him? (I'm really asking, I don't know)

Golly-o, there appear to be a great many debates going on in this one thread all at once! Impressive.

That's quite interesting. It seems that I have a different idea of what the word "God" means as well, which can always be a problem seeing as that is the basis of the entire argument.

To me, the word's meaning is more or less equal to "everything" in the most literal sense, and I believe that everything technically exists. So if there's a scale of 0 to infinity, God==infinity, and because God==infinity, God==everything. Therefore 0==God & infinity==God, so God also equals everything else on the scale, both seperately and together.
On a scale of 0 to infinity, you and I are on the scale, as are all the numbers, and all the bits and things and thoughts, and other gods. This is where the definition of "God" comes into play, as it can easily mean different things depending on the context (there's even a popular god who likes to call himself "God"), and the extent of infinity is questioned as well. To me, to say that there is no God or that God needs proven is to claim that you, everything else, and whatever you conceptualise as infinity are not concepts.

Seeing as I appear to be a concept, as I have a concept of myself, my whole idea proves itself. Hooray!

Hmm, I wonder how many people would claim that they do not exist and that certain numbers do.

Which popular god likes to call himself "God"? As far as I know, in every religion there is, "God" is mere a diety's title, just as when I greet my human friend by calling him "man". He and I both know that "Man" isn't his name, but that it's what he is. And he doesn't think of himself as "Man", but as whatever his personal name is. That said, the Hebrew/Christian God does have many names, and us referring to him by the generic word "God" is just us using a respectful title, like calling one's commanding officer "Sir" with genuine respect. But, unlike a human commanding officer, the Christian God won't take offense at us using his real name to address him. To this day, a lot of Jews believe they're not supposed to use God's actual name, so they leave the vowels out, and make a contraction for it. But avoiding His actual name is a principle that is not found in the entire Old Testament, or New Testament for that matter.

There's also the so-called "Name" or "Sacred Name" cult, which teaches that if you don't use Jesus' exact Hebrew name, He won't hear your prayers. From a logical standpoint, that's somewhat of a convincing argument, but it's really not backed up by Scripture. I.e., Bill prefers me to call him Bill rather than "John", but if he knows I happened to mistake "John" for his name, Bill won't be offended at me. Likewise with Jesus: It's most proper to use his actual name, "Yeshua", than the Greek transliteration "Jesus" which is itself a nonsensical word, strictly speaking. When Jesus lived on Earth, no one called him "Jesus". Bill won't be mad if I mistaken call him "John", but he will be honored if I learn to use his correct name.

That's what i think, but of course that may be just a very modern take on it, because in the past, when science had not explained very much yet many people believed in god because it seemed likely to be true; not only was much of the world uncharted/unknown, but so many learned people spoke of him, and old and revered books and papers referred to him, and buildings were built to his glory.
Most people believe what their "elders"/chiefs/leaders/media etc tell them to believe, at least as far as is necessary to pass.
There were very few people actually thinking about WHY they believed in god. That aspect of the business they left up to the authorities.

I only recently, literally days ago, realised what a hard knock Darwins theory of evolution must have been only 150 years ago. And i think one effect might have been to encourage/oblige a lot of western white people to suddenly start wondering just WHY they believed in god. There doesn't seem to be very much reason left. There isn't even anyone who'll be impressed by thumbing ones nose at them with a belief in something irrational. People do it all the time.

The only reason to do so might be, exactly as Robert Bolts 20th century version of Thomas More is made to say, for the effect it has on the person who believes.

I experimented briefly, for about a year , with a belief in god. And it did have an effect. It was interesting. But after a while the presence of god became oppressive, and so i stopped.

I think that it could have been a bit like an exercise in self-induced "love/infatuation" for an idea ( which is what infatuations are always for anyway, just with someones name attached) , and which once the first rapturous glow of joy had begun to fade began to make demands on me if it was to survive. I just realised how similar the gradually growing feeling of oppression was to the stages in an infatuation when begin to fear the loved one, to want to please them. Hmm.
I would have had to invest in it if had wanted to keep the belief. I did not want to. That was the end of it. But i can imagine that if i had chosen to invest in this idea, it would have become more and more important to me. Taken on even more life. Especially as the relationship could never have been consummated, except on dieing. Imagine being in a state of crush ones whole life, waiting for death to be with them. Golly.

First of all implication ~(p=>q) is not equivalent to conjunction p&(~q).Only two implications or two conjunctions can be equivalent towards each other.
This is formulation of:"Not If you are threat to me I will kill you IFF you are threat and I will not kill you".
This makes no sense.

Second,this is total nonsense: (p=>q) <=> ~(p&~q) & ~~(p&~q)=> (p&~q)
Because:~(p&~q) & ~~(p&~q) is contradiction,since second conjunct is negation of first.

This is fallacious statement:



Since according to De Morgans law ~(~P&Q)<=>(PV~Q),not ~(~p&q)=> (pV~q).

But even if accept your construction,there can be no equivalence between conditional statement and conjunction or disjunction.

And this is totally wrong:



Conjunction is not equivalent to implication.So,CLEARLY it's not 3<=>~(~(p=>q)).


This is fallacious as well:



If you have ~Q in implication,and ~Q in conjunction,this does not mean that these two are equivalent,since conjunction is different logical operation from implication.

.

If God is natural object,then he is limited with the fact that he is part of nature,and that he is object.According to your definition then your God is not a God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God



Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Being

I am a mathematician: formal logic is my turf
My derivation may have been irrelevant, but it was not wrong.

No. There are two elementary logical connectives: ~, V
From this we can define A&B as~(~AV~B)
and then => can be defined in terms of the above & and ~

Parenthesis were omitted because I'm lazy. The actual statement was [(p=>q)<=>~(p&~q)] & [~~(p&~q)=>(p&~q)]
Really, your grasp of philosophy is considerable but you should apply the principle of charity more often.


If I have A<=>B I have A=>B & B=>A; writing one is not wrong, it is only incomplete.

If I really must, I will rewrite the proof in pure, mind numbing formality, but I did not think this was necessary.
Anyway this argument isn't going to go anywhere as I did not disagree with your original conclusions aside from the claim about natural language and "iff".