From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

[irichc]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth (vid. 3), it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

[Gilgaron]

What justification exists for identifying the ultimate Truth as God?

[Duder]

What justification exists for identifying the ultimate Truth as God?

Maybe the poster defines God as the ultimate truth - which is perfectly okay - one's entitled to define terms in any way one wishes in their argument, so long as everybody understands what they mean by them.

[Gilgaron]

Maybe the poster defines God as the ultimate truth - which is perfectly okay - one's entitled to define terms in any way one wishes in their argument, so long as everybody understands what they mean by them.

True, but it will be nearly begging the question to define it as such for use as an apologetic tool with people that do not agree.

Atheists would find it rather difficult to agree that God is the Ultimate Truth, at which point his proof for God cannot continue, unless he is already preaching to the choir.

[irichc]

Proving 1).



Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.



We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.



So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.





Proving 2).



I.



In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.



If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that “the truth is the truth”, since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.



Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.



NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.



II.



1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.



1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.



1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.



1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.



1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.



1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.



1.2.2. If it has not a frist Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.





The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.



Greetings.



Daniel.



Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

[steamer]

Proving 1).



Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.



We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.



So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.

This infinite series of truths you've just decribed disproves your theory that god is needed for infinite truth. Thanks, I was getting confused.

[irichc]

This infinite series of truths you've just decribed disproves your theory that god is needed for infinite truth. Thanks, I was getting confused.

I take "infinite" as "with no ending", and you are assuming I'm using it like "with no beginning".

Greetings.

Daniel.

[Duder]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth (vid. 3), it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

Irichc -

I want to see if I've understood the first two points in your argument correctly.

1. Truth is Expansive

Every true statement leads to another true statement. For example, the true statement "the girl leaps from the diving board" necessarily leads to another, related true statement such as "the girl makes a splash in the pool."

If this were not the case, then, as you put it, "truth's limit would be a non-truth". We could have a situation where the truth "the girl leaps from the diving board" leads to a non-truth, such as "the girl never falls but ascends all the way to the Andromeda galexy." And since that is absurd, we must conclude that all true statements lead only to other true statements.

2. Infinite Truth

If every true statement leads to another true statement, it follows that all of reality can, in principle, be deduced from any single true statement. If we had unlimited powers of reasoning and an unlimited time in which to reason, we could come to know every true fact in the whole universe and beyond. The total number of true facts in existence is infinite, and this infinite number of true facts is God.

I have some thoughts on this. but I want to find out first if I'm following you aright.

[cavegirl]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

May be true. But not all truths need to be connected. There can be strings of truths, finite or infinite, that follow from each other.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

??? I do not follow. Thus is a non sequitur. And I do not see why a truth at the end of a chain would be more supreme or unattainable than a previous one. And, if you want to define God as "supreme and unattainable truth", I'm not sure what you're getting at. Presupposing that which you want to prove? That's like using Pythagoras' Theorem in order to prove it. For that reason alone your proof is fallacious. And why would we have to call a supreme truth God? (I know I'm not the first one asking that but you haven't answered it yet).

[Nicholas]

So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth (vid. 3), it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in this statement you state that if the proposition "God does not exist" is asserted as truth, it means that God does exist? Is there anyone here that finds that utterly illogical? No offense here but the fact is that it seems to that you are are using a rather strange defintion of God, in that you are simply defining God as "The Truth." Also, truth by most common definitions is not an entity, but a factual statement, while God is usually thought of as a sentient entity. What you are doing is using uncommon defintions. For instance, you state that "The Truth", or factual statements by some of your analogies, is God, but since you are probably not attempting to prove the existence of facts you are probably trying to prove the existence of the entity known as God, yet instead of using the "Entity" definition of God, you use the "Truth" defintion of God. You should not use the fact that one commonly used defintion of "Truth" exists to prove the existence of a less commonly used definition of "Truth", seeing as that one is not needed for the other to exist.

[steamer]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

False propositions can proceed to true ones

1=1
1/1=1 1*0=0
2/2=1 2*0=0
3/3=1 3*0=0

1=2

1/1=1 1*0=0
2/2=1 2*0=0
3/3=1 3*0=0

[irichc]

Why God=Truth?

As I have already told:

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.


Why Truth isn't factual?

Let's see:

1. Although we complicate propositions, they will be self-contradictory or not, that is, they will be true or not.


1.1. Then, for instance, since the proposition "The Earth is flat" is not self-contradictory, it is a true one.



1.1.1. If in "the Earth is flat" we turn "is" into "can be", it is obvious there would be no nonsense involved. If something can be, then it is possible; therefore, it is. And, as far as it is rather than it isn't, it is true rather than false.



1.1.2. Because, even though the "is" form predisposes us to summon up an idea of present, the nature of Being extends itself to the whole timeline, from past to present and future. Thus, time can't erase what has already happened, and past things can't avoid new events to come. It doesn't matter how we express a true thought in a temporal form: we must adopt a perspective of eternity.



1.1.3. However, "It is true, here and now, that this wall is red" (being it a white wall, here and now) can't be called neither a true proposition nor a false one, since truth's nature can't be limited by the "here and now" form. Instead of it, we would be speaking of an empirical certainty, so "It is true that I have that certainty" would be true. But nothing else.



1.2. In the other hand, we don't contradict ourselves and, by the way, we don't express any tautology when we state "It is true that plumbers are philosophers".



1.2.1. "It is true that plumbers are and are not philosophers" is false. But "It is true that plumbers are philosophers" and "It is true that plumbers are not philosophers" are both true propositions even in the same system, since they don't summon up a precise moment.



1.2.2. As likely, it is correct to state both "It is true that A is alive" and "It is true that A is not alive", if in our system we have a third proposition as follows: "It is true that A is mortal". Being mortal means, of course, to deal constantly with the possibility of death.



1.2.2.1. Thus, it can't be considered self-contradictory to state (from a perspective of eternity) that "A is alive" and "A is not alive", but no doubt it would be if the proposition was "A is and is not alive". In the first case we have two propositions, harmonized by a third one; in the second case we have only one, which is self-contradictory.


Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

[Gilgaron]

Why God=Truth?

As I have already told:

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

So how do we get from a self supporting truth to a deity? Couldn't we just as easily take this statement and use it to claim that truth need not be bound in a deity, as it is self supporting?

Sorry if you get to this in the rest of your post, your grammar choice is difficult to parse.

[Duder]

Why God=Truth?
As I have already told: Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, ...

Yes?

. . .this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”.

"Any truth. . . presupposes the truth that the truth is the truth"? Good heavens, man, what are you on about"?

And that, far from being a tautology,. . .

If that isn't a tautology I have no idea what could possibly qualify as a tautology.

. . . indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.


Why Truth isn't factual?

Let's see:

1. Although we complicate propositions, they will be self-contradictory or not, that is, they will be true or not.

This is a complicated proposition. Are you saying that every proposition that does not contradict itself is true? How about this one: "Augustus Ceasar liked stale beer." That statement does not contradict itself. Do we deduce, then, that it is necessarily true?

1.1. Then, for instance, since the proposition "The Earth is flat" is not self-contradictory, it is a true one.

Ah. Okay. Then Ceasar liked stale beer.

1.1.1. If in "the Earth is flat" we turn "is" into "can be", it is obvious there would be no nonsense involved. If something can be, then it is possible; therefore, it is.

Every logical possibility is a viable reality? What about possibilities that are not self-condtradictory that disagree with each other? "Ceasar hated stale beer" and "Ceasar liked stale beer" are both possible (since niether statement is self-contradictory) but only one of them can be true, right?

...unless of course you're coming at this thing from a quantum angle, and you iimagine Ceasar as the subject of an experiment in particle physics. As long as no one observes Ceasar, then he is in a superposed state, described by the wave function, that expresses every possible state for Ceasar. He both hates and likes stale beer. I can dig that.

And, as far as it is rather than it isn't, it is true rather than false.

What?

1.1.2. Because, even though the "is" form predisposes us to summon up an idea of present, the nature of Being extends itself to the whole timeline, from past to present and future. Thus, time can't erase what has already happened, and past things can't avoid new events to come. It doesn't matter how we express a true thought in a temporal form: we must adopt a perspective of eternity.

Einstein's General Relativity coupled with LaPlace's determinism. Time as a fourth "direction", in which the landscape is already laid out - cast in stone, as it were.

1.1.3. However, "It is true, here and now, that this wall is red" (being it a white wall, here and now) can't be called neither a true proposition nor a false one, since truth's nature can't be limited by the "here and now" form. Instead of it, we would be speaking of an empirical certainty, so "It is true that I have that certainty" would be true. But nothing else.

That which is true in the now moment isn't really true? Okay, now you've wandered into the old being versus becoming business, and you seem to be slightly partial to the becoming side of things.

1.2. In the other hand, we don't contradict ourselves and, by the way, we don't express any tautology when we state "It is true that plumbers are philosophers".

You're right about that, it's no tautology that plumbers are philosophers. But perhaps plumbers can become philosophers with diligent study. Have you ever noticed how an enthusiastic freshman student of philosophy will sometimes fall into a peculiar trap? He is elated with the sheer depth and breadth of the new thoughts he is thinking, and his newly-liberated mind delights to soar o'er the infinite vistas spread out beneath him, subject to the raw power of his syllogistic mastery. And sometimes his ego grows to match the size of his Universals. But not to worry - he gets over it next semester.

1.2.1. "It is true that plumbers are and are not philosophers" is false. But "It is true that plumbers are philosophers" and "It is true that plumbers are not philosophers" are both true propositions even in the same system, since they don't summon up a precise moment.

What? What?

1.2.2. As likely, it is correct to state both "It is true that A is alive" and "It is true that A is not alive", . . .

Yes, if we're back to quantum physics now. Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead . . .

. . . if in our system we have a third proposition as follows: "It is true that A is mortal". Being mortal means, of course, to deal constantly with the possibility of death.

So to "be mortal" and to "be both alive and dead" both mean the same thing? Did the Buddha say that? Or more quantum physics?

1.2.2.1. Thus, it can't be considered self-contradictory to state (from a perspective of eternity) that "A is alive" and "A is not alive", but no doubt it would be if the proposition was "A is and is not alive". In the first case we have two propositions, harmonized by a third one; in the second case we have only one, which is self-contradictory.[/font][font=Arial]

"Afflac!"

Sorry if I've come off as uncouth, but I wanted to be the first to risk looking stupid and admit I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[chickenman]

I think quantum physics screws up his contigency argument in the philosophy forum, so i'm sure he's quite ignorant of it