addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

The Atlanta Atheists Meetup Group Message Board › From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

A former member
Post #: 16
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, 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.

Cheers.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelanea...­
A former member
Post #: 18
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.

Jumping Jupiter! This is a whole argument in itself, and it's rife with ambiguity. If you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, then you'll have to define "leads to", and "truth is going to find".

Since this, #1, is far from obvious, the rest of the argument is so far worthless.


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

Whoa! you're hoping to slip in an unjustified "which is God" without us noticing?

If you wish to give a name to the set of all true statements, that's fine, but, I will hold you to that single usage only, and you may not use that name to describe anything else, like a consciousness.

Since we already have a meaningful definition of what "God" means, (and it's not "the set of all true statements"!), I'll replace all remaining referents with a new word, "foo", so as to be less confusing.


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 foo'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, it follows that foo (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.


Yay, these ones, #3 & #4, makes sense and are valid. They depend on #1, so we can't say they're "true", but at least they are not meaningless fluff. Congratulations.


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

Cheers.

Daniel.

Sorry Daniel, but you can see that the last statement of #5 is non sequitur.

If you can fix up #1, you might have a proof that there are an infininte number of true statements, though.
A former member
Post #: 7
Imagine a coin toss in which the chances to land either heads or tail is exactly 50/50. My truthful proposition would be that the coin will fall heads or tails, and this is the truth given the chances; However, let the coin fall and since it cannot be both, heads and tails, my proposition becomes untruthful. This is an instance in which truth (the truth is maintained as long as the coin keeps flipping) would lead to falsity (as soon as the coin lands, because it would either be 100% heads or tails). Keeping the previews conditions the same, we now try to make a commitment to one side of the coin, let’s say heads. While the coin is flipping you are only 50% right, therefore you are not right, not being truthful (because of the 50/50 chance). Now the coin lands tails down, you guessed right. From the falsity of being certain when it was impossible, truth-ness arose.

So, since (I think) I have disproved your first claim, the second can be discarded. Thought I would like to also add the opposite version of the claims, just for fun.

1#
Every un-truth leads to another one. Otherwise, un-truth limit would be a truth, in which un-truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to untrue ones, and untrue ones would generate true ones as well. (this is if we follows such a “logic”).
2#
Thus, every un-truth-ness, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable untruths, which is God. (Notice that by making the same unlogical claim, I have disproved god. No, not disproved, rather made him be the maximum untruth.)
3#
By stating an un-truthful proposition, being really un-truthful, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of un-truth and, consequently, recognizing God’s UN-existence (vid. 2).
4#
So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God exist", as far as it is asserted as a un-truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) does not exists.
5#
However, if God does not exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is true; and, if God doesn't exist, it is true too (same claim twice…typo maybe?), because in that case the un-truth(i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single un-truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God does not exist.

Well that was easy. That is my reply to anyone who wants to follow this pseudo-logic.
Athen F.
user 45604552
Atlanta, GA
Post #: 2
In my opinion, God does not exist for the following reasons:

God is supposed to be infinite. But, mathematically speaking, even infinities have a beginning, otherwise one would run into a circular argument of continues justification.

One would reasonably start with nothingness or an absolute (not yet definable) zero as the beginning of a universe. Yet, something so simple and non-complex as nothingness should not lead us to believe that God is somehow created from this. We would reasonably conclude that from simplicity come other simple bits of energy/particles, leading to more complex designs that we observe in the universe.

Of course, those who believe in God would argue that God has always existed, but this is a paradox, as there needs to be something to justify this type of complexity from the start.
Danny
dbarrs
Roswell, GA
Post #: 47
It could be said that countable infinities have a start point, but that certainly does not hold for non-countable infinities. If one wants to prove that gods exist using some logic concerning infinities then one would have to start with the presumption that gods are infinities of the second type. But this surely get us no nearer to proving their existence or non-existence. I feel no compunction to prove by logic the non-existence of gods or spirits or angels or father christmas, as logic does not enter into the believer's justification for his belief. Indeed he does not feel the need to justify his belief. Why should I feel the need to justify my non-belief?
Athen F.
user 45604552
Atlanta, GA
Post #: 6
Sure, it is your choice whether or not to inquire if there is justification for God's non-existence, as this has been the single most challenging inquiry of mankind and the holy grail of physics (how nothingness produces something).

Also you can start with the presumption that God is infinity of the second type (an unaccountable infinity). So for example, there are unaccountable infinities between a set of numbers [such as 4 and 5 and a different set 5 and 50, where numbers between both sets will yield unaccountable infinities (they are unknowable)], however, one could conclude that these infinities have a starting point as well, because they rely on a starting base to ensure that there is an unaccountable infinity and that there is something rather than nothing. (otherwise we would run into the problem of ad infinitum, unless the ultimate starting point is absolute nothingness).

In time, I think physics will progress to give us a justification (or better justifications) how nothingness can produce something (maybe even without running into the problem of ad infinitum), so reason and logic will always be to the advantage of Atheists.

But of course, it is a very difficult problem, so I don't think you should feel the need to justify your belief.
A former member
Post #: 4
A hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically. This requires a testable hypothesis which includes predictable, testable outcomes.

So, first you have to define "God" in terms that can be tested. Religions have in general been very good at definitions with no testable outcomes. Sometimes I feel the definition is "that which cannot be disproved by any rational or observable, predictable outcomes" is the definition.
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy