A mathematical proof of God's existance . . .

[wolper]

Did you actually READ the quote in the box? Because it covers your objection and eliminates it.

Well of course if the argument in the box is valid then my argument is countered. My point is that if my argument is true, then the argument in the box -Gödel's argument- is fallacious; and further that there's afaik no reason why one would prevail over the other: they're analogous and equally strong (or weak). But since they can not both be true at the same time the obvious conclusion is both arguments are false. That is, both Gödel's argument for God and my inverted version of that argument against His existence derail somewhere, and since they're analogous it probably happens for the same reason.

Now given the Goldbach example in my previous post (and its counterpart which proves equally strong Goldbach's conjecture is necessarily not true in our world) I think I have a pretty good idea why both reasonings derail; but perhaps it's better if others try to figure this out for themselves first.

[Sparko]

Well of course if the argument in the box is valid then my argument is countered. My point is that if my argument is true, then the argument in the box -Gödel's argument- is fallacious; and further that there's afaik no reason why one would prevail over the other: they're analogous and equally strong (or weak). But since they can not both be true at the same time the obvious conclusion is both arguments are false. That is, both Gödel's argument for God and my inverted version of that argument against His existence derail somewhere, and since they're analogous it probably happens for the same reason.

Now given the Goldbach example in my previous post (and its counterpart which proves equally strong Goldbach's conjecture is necessarily not true in our world) I think I have a pretty good idea why both reasonings derail; but perhaps it's better if others try to figure this out for themselves first.

You obviously don't follow the argument at all, do you?

[wolper]

You obviously don't follow the argument at all, do you?

Let’s take this on line by line. I’d like to point out this is the third time I write something substantial, while you literally have not made any other comment than the above and “Did you actually read the argument?”

1. God can either necessarily exist, or necessarily not exist.

Well, for the duration of this thread, let’s say this is true. Personally –and metaphysically- I don’t have an objection against God not necessarily existing (or not necessarily not existing), but that aside.

2. If God is an all-powerful being, and if he exists, he necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

The “all-powerful being” bit is redundant, since by definition anything necessarily existing in one possible world necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Otherwise ok.

3. If he doesn't exist, he necessarily doesn't exist in any possible worlds.

Assuming he necessarily doesn’t exist, yes, by definition. But notice that an important point is made here: if God doesn’t exist in one possible world, He doesn’t exist in any world.

4. It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world.

Well, frankly it is possible to say this; but that’s not the point. What is the point? See below.

5. No matter how slim the chance is, God might exist.

Possibly, but here’s the crux of the issue at hand: no matter how slim the chance is, God might not exist. Denying this last bit at this point (i.e. saying “there’s no chance God does not exist”) assumes the conclusion of the whole argument as a premiss of the argument (making the argument circular, and thus invalid). So at this point in the argument we have no other choice than to assume that while there’s a possibility that God exists, there’s also a possibility He does not exist.

6. That means that God can't necessarily not exist.

Logically true, but since the conclusion in the previous line was there’s also a possibility God doesn’t exist, it also logically means God can not necessarily exist. That’s the point I was making.

7. Since the choices are either God necessarily does exist, or necessarily doesn't, and we have eliminated the possibility that he necessarily doesn't, the only possibility left is that he necessarily does.

We’ve also eliminated the possibility that God does necessarily exist. Since we’ve now eliminated two mutually exclusive possibilities with two completely analogous reasonings, the whole argument must be wrong.

[Sparko]

Let’s take this on line by line. I’d like to point out this is the third time I write something substantial, while you literally have not made any other comment than the above and “Did you actually read the argument?”

This is actually the first time you have engaged the argument instead of just merely claiming that your proposal counteracts it.

1. God can either necessarily exist, or necessarily not exist.

Well, for the duration of this thread, let’s say this is true. Personally –and metaphysically- I don’t have an objection against God not necessarily existing (or not necessarily not existing), but that aside.

It's not a suggestion that is asking you to agree or not agree with it. It is a statement of logic. It is either one or the other. The argument then goes on to show why it is the first option.

2. If God is an all-powerful being, and if he exists, he necessarily exists in all possible worlds.

The “all-powerful being” bit is redundant, since by definition anything necessarily existing in one possible world necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Otherwise ok.

It is not redundant. It is essential to the argument. If he only existed in some possible worlds and not others, then he would not be all-powerful. And if he is all powerful, he has to exist in all possible worlds.

3. If he doesn't exist, he necessarily doesn't exist in any possible worlds.

Assuming he necessarily doesn’t exist, yes, by definition. But notice that an important point is made here: if God doesn’t exist in one possible world, He doesn’t exist in any world.

See the previous statement. If God is an all-powerful being, then he either exists in all worlds or in NO worlds. This is just a corollary of the previous statement. The argument then goes on to show why this corollary is not reality.

4. It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world.

Well, frankly it is possible to say this; but that’s not the point. What is the point? See below.

You cannot eliminate the possibility that God exists in some possible world. That is what the argument is saying here. That is the point. Not what you can physically "say"

5. No matter how slim the chance is, God might exist.

Possibly, but here’s the crux of the issue at hand: no matter how slim the chance is, God might not exist. Denying this last bit at this point (i.e. saying “there’s no chance God does not exist”) assumes the conclusion of the whole argument as a premiss of the argument (making the argument circular, and thus invalid). So at this point in the argument we have no other choice than to assume that while there’s a possibility that God exists, there’s also a possibility He does not exist.

No. Here is where you mess up. It is NOT possible to say that God can't exist in any world, because there is a chance that he does. Merely claiming the opposite doesn't make it true or logical. It can't be both. And you cannot eliminate the possibility that God does exist in some possible world. That is what "possible" is all about.

6. That means that God can't necessarily not exist.

Logically true, but since the conclusion in the previous line was there’s also a possibility God doesn’t exist, it also logically means God can not necessarily exist. That’s the point I was making.

and your point is wrong. because you don't understand the argument made in the first place.

7. Since the choices are either God necessarily does exist, or necessarily doesn't, and we have eliminated the possibility that he necessarily doesn't, the only possibility left is that he necessarily does.

We’ve also eliminated the possibility that God does necessarily exist. Since we’ve now eliminated two mutually exclusive possibilities with two completely analogous reasonings, the whole argument must be wrong.

bzzt. Merely stating something contrary doesn't make it a logically coherent counter-argument. Your claim is just wrong. You take a left turn at point 5.

[roadwalker]

While it is certainly possible to apply some level of scientific proof to some points of doctrine, I do not believe that God wants us to be able to prove that he exists. If we had proof then the world would have perfect knowlege, and therefore would be denied the opportunity to have FAITH in His existence. Faith is a necessary component of salvation, since to be truly saved we must have the choice whether to believe and being given that choice, choose to believe.

We can develop finer and finer tools and learn more and more but if God chooses to remain undetected (which I believe He does) then He can certainly stay out of the view of our toys.

[wolper]

This is actually the first time you have engaged the argument instead of just merely claiming that your proposal counteracts it.


It's not a suggestion that is asking you to agree or not agree with it. It is a statement of logic. It is either one or the other. The argument then goes on to show why it is the first option.



It is not redundant. It is essential to the argument. If he only existed in some possible worlds and not others, then he would not be all-powerful. And if he is all powerful, he has to exist in all possible worlds.




See the previous statement. If God is an all-powerful being, then he either exists in all worlds or in NO worlds. This is just a corollary of the previous statement. The argument then goes on to show why this corollary is not reality.



You cannot eliminate the possibility that God exists in some possible world. That is what the argument is saying here. That is the point. Not what you can physically "say"


No. Here is where you mess up. It is NOT possible to say that God can't exist in any world, because there is a chance that he does. Merely claiming the opposite doesn't make it true or logical. It can't be both. And you cannot eliminate the possibility that God does exist in some possible world. That is what "possible" is all about.


and your point is wrong. because you don't understand the argument made in the first place.



bzzt. Merely stating something contrary doesn't make it a logically coherent counter-argument. Your claim is just wrong. You take a left turn at point 5.

I still do not think you understand the point I'm making. Let me summarize the argument thusly, to show both its apparent validity and its analogy to your argument.


God either necessarily exists, or He necessarily doesn't exist (He's not contingent).

It is possible that God doesn't exist.

If God doesn't exist in one possible world, then He doesn't exist in any possible world (because of His necessity).

Therefore God doesn't exist in any possible world (conclusion).


Now we move to Gödel, to see if there's an objection:

God can either necessarily exist, or necessarily not exist. If God is an all-powerful being, and if he exists, he necessarily exists in all possible worlds. If he doesn't exist, he necessarily doesn't exist in any possible worlds. It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world.

Whoa! Stop the press! That last statement is not true: I have just shown as a conclusion that God doesn't exist in any possible world.

But if Gödels argument derails here, then everything that comes hereafter: "No matter how slim the chance is, God might exist. That means that God can't necessarily not exist. Since the choices are either God necessarily does exist, or necessarily doesn't, and we have eliminated the possibility that he necessarily doesn't, the only possibility left is that he necessarily does." is unsupported, including the conclusion "God necessarily exists".

I really don't see what's wrong with this argument that isn't wrong with yours. You claim my It is possible that God doesn't exist is not true because of Gödel's conclusion. Likewise, I can claim your/Gödel's It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world is not true because of my conclusion.

(disclaimer: as noted earlier I do not really think this whole thing is a valid argument. But contrary to you I think the reason it fails is the same -because of the same basic structure- as to why Gödel's argument fails)

[Sparko]

I still do not think you understand the point I'm making. Let me summarize the argument thusly, to show both its apparent validity and its analogy to your argument.


God either necessarily exists, or He necessarily doesn't exist (He's not contingent).

It is possible that God doesn't exist.

If God doesn't exist in one possible world, then He doesn't exist in any possible world (because of His necessity).

Therefore God doesn't exist in any possible world (conclusion).

You have not given any rational support to your "conclusion" - merely making a statement and calling it a conclusion doesn't make it true.

Now we move to Gödel, to see if there's an objection:

God can either necessarily exist, or necessarily not exist. If God is an all-powerful being, and if he exists, he necessarily exists in all possible worlds. If he doesn't exist, he necessarily doesn't exist in any possible worlds. It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world.

Whoa! Stop the press! That last statement is not true: I have just shown as a conclusion that God doesn't exist in any possible world.

No. You have merely STATED that God doesn't exist in any possible world. You have not given any logical argument or reasoning to support your statement. That is where you fail. You can make any statement you wish, but that doesn't make that statement logically true.

[wolper]

You have not given any rational support to your "conclusion" - merely making a statement and calling it a conclusion doesn't make it true.

No. You have merely STATED that God doesn't exist in any possible world. You have not given any logical argument or reasoning to support your statement. That is where you fail. You can make any statement you wish, but that doesn't make that statement logically true.

Now you're getting silly. I have not merely stated that "God does not exist in any possible world"; it's the conclusion that follows logically from the previous statements.

[Sparko]

Now you're getting silly. I have not merely stated that "God does not exist in any possible world"; it's the conclusion that follows logically from the previous statements.

No, it's not. You just stated it. You offered no argument for why it is so. I am not here to give you any basic lessons in logic and reasoning. If you don't understand the basics, then there is no point in discussing it with you.

You can logically state that because the concept of a Christian God is all powerful and sovereign, that if he exists in one possible world, he has to exist in all possible worlds, because if he is all powerful, he would be sovereign over all possible worlds. That is a reasonable argument because we all know what all-powerful and sovereign entails, and if God only existed in one possible world and not others, then he would not be all-powerful or sovereign.

But you cannot logically state that God doesn't exist in ANY possible world. Why? Because you have no way to test that with any sort of logical argument. Not only that, but you yourself have already admitted that God could exist in a possible world. So all that eliminates the case that God doesn't exist in any possible world. Therefore you can't reasonably and truly state that God doesn't exist in any possible world.

You can physically "say" it all you want, but that doesn't make it logical, reasonable, or true. It is not even possibly true.

[wolper]

No, it's not. You just stated it. You offered no argument for why it is so. I am not here to give you any basic lessons in logic and reasoning. If you don't understand the basics, then there is no point in discussing it with you.

You can logically state that because the concept of a Christian God is all powerful and sovereign, that if he exists in one possible world, he has to exist in all possible worlds, because if he is all powerful, he would be sovereign over all possible worlds. That is a reasonable argument because we all know what all-powerful and sovereign entails, and if God only existed in one possible world and not others, then he would not be all-powerful or sovereign.

But you cannot logically state that God doesn't exist in ANY possible world. Why? Because you have no way to test that with any sort of logical argument. Not only that, but you yourself have already admitted that God could exist in a possible world. So all that eliminates the case that God doesn't exist in any possible world. Therefore you can't reasonably and truly state that God doesn't exist in any possible world.

You can physically "say" it all you want, but that doesn't make it logical, reasonable, or true. It is not even possibly true.

This is not silly anymore, this is downright not accepting a logical syllogism and dismissing its conclusion as a "mere statement" because you don't like the implication. So let me spell it out for you, and see who understands "basic logic and reason" better:

God either necessarily exists, or He necessarily doesn't exist (He's not contingent).
Now this is a statement/premiss, but one you can't possibly disagree with, because Gödel and you start with the same statement.

It is possible that God doesn't exist.
Another statement and probably a more arguable one. At this point, as an a priori premiss it's a reasonable one, because just like your It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world there's always a chance, no matter how slim, that a world exists in which this is the case.

If God doesn't exist in one possible world, then He doesn't exist in any possible world (because of His necessity).
Not a statement, but a logical conclusion directly following from the first statement (a corollary), and the definition of necessity.

Therefore God doesn't exist in any possible world.
A logical conclusion following from the previous conclusion and the second statement.


So nowhere have I "merely stated" that God can't exist in any posible world. It is a conclusion inferred from reasonable premisses. The thing you keep on missing is that since your and my argument are analogous/have the same basic structure, any criticism from you against my argument applies to your argument as well; you're basically fighting yourself.

My point remains the same: if your syllogism is valid, then so is mine. If mine isn't, then neither is yours. But the conclusions can not both be true, therefore they're both wrong. The trick still is to determine where they go wrong.

[lao tzu]

*throws another spanner into the mix

If God is defined as the creator of the universe, God is contingent on the existence of the universe.

[Sparko]

This is not silly anymore, this is downright not accepting a logical syllogism and dismissing its conclusion as a "mere statement" because you don't like the implication. So let me spell it out for you, and see who understands "basic logic and reason" better:

God either necessarily exists, or He necessarily doesn't exist (He's not contingent).
Now this is a statement/premiss, but one you can't possibly disagree with, because Gödel and you start with the same statement.

It is possible that God doesn't exist.
Another statement and probably a more arguable one. At this point, as an a priori premiss it's a reasonable one, because just like your It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world there's always a chance, no matter how slim, that a world exists in which this is the case.

This seems to be where you keep messing up. Since there always exists a possible world that God does exist in, and being a all powerful being, then the conclusion is that God must necessarily exist in all possible worlds. After all the actual world is greater than a possible one, and if God can exist in a possible world, then being the all-powerful being that he is, he would exist in the actual world. That being the case, it excludes your statement that it is possible that God doesn't exist. In order to prove your statement you would have to show where Godel's argument fails, and you have not done so. you just keep claiming it is so.

[Sparko]

*throws another spanner into the mix

If God is defined as the creator of the universe, God is contingent on the existence of the universe.

No, just his being the "creator of the universe"

as in a if being a parent is defined as having offspring then being a parent is contingent on the existence of an offspring. Not the person who is a parent's existence.

[lao tzu]

as in a if being a parent is defined as having offspring then being a parent is contingent on the existence of an offspring. Not the person who is a parent's existence.

Drunk posting itt.

[wolper]

This seems to be where you keep messing up. Since there always exists a possible world that God does exist in, and being a all powerful being, then the conclusion is that God must necessarily exist in all possible worlds. After all the actual world is greater than a possible one, and if God can exist in a possible world, then being the all-powerful being that he is, he would exist in the actual world. That being the case, it excludes your statement that it is possible that God doesn't exist. In order to prove your statement you would have to show where Godel's argument fails, and you have not done so. you just keep claiming it is so.

No need to repeat your argument for the umpteenth time, I got it the first time. What you keep missing is that while there is a chance God may exist, there's also a chance he may not. Or put slightly differently: your argument assumes there's always a possibility God may exist, but there's is a situation where this is not true, namely if in fact God does not exist. In your reasoning you ignore this possibility, and use your conclusion to justify this dismissal of possibility only afterwards, which is bad reasoning. Basically you're using the conclusion of your argument to turn the premiss "God may exist" into "God must exist", and then come to the conclusion it is true. Well, surprise!

The way you reason can be used to prove about anything exists (or can not exist!), for instance: there's always a world possible in which a Unicorn necessarily exists (you can not dismiss this possibility completely). But then such an animal must exist in all possible worlds, therefore Unicorns exist in our world.

And btw I have shown where Gödel's argument fails, for instance in post #21 (or about any other post of mine). Don't you read or understand them? Strange, since they copy your own argument.