Page 1 of 20 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 192

Thread: Therefore, there is a god

  1. Top | #1
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46

    Therefore, there is a god

    This post of mine didn't get the attention it deserved. So, I have to try here, see if the Higher Spirit who is inhabiting this adobe can inspire proper cogitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...
    If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god
    Is that simple enough as a logical truth for you? Is that not intuitive? Can you even tell it's a logical truth or explain why it would or wouldn't be one?

    Me, I have a simple explanation. Do you have one?
    EB
    So, this bit of propositional logic is so simple it should be understood by all here. However, it happens to be a logical truth, i.e. it is always true, which should be a real shocker for most people here since it says there is a god.

    So, me, I have a simple explanation but this thread isn't about me. It's about you, and specifically whether you can question your own assumptions so as to get to the truth.

    So the question is as follows:

    Can you see intuitively whether it is a logical truth?

    So first, if you feel intuitively it is, please tell me if you feel comfortable with a piece of logic proving there is a god?

    Now, if you feel intuitively it's not a logical truth, then, just to make sure, how would you go about proving it isn't?

    For those who don't have any intuition about it, you can go in peace, there's a logical truth that says a god will provide somehow.

    And for all the few big mouths here who can't even argue their case, please don't waste your time, just abstain.

    Thank you to all.
    EB

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member phands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    New York, Manhattan, Upper West Side
    Posts
    1,976
    Archived
    1
    Total Posts
    1,977
    Rep Power
    27
    It got exactly the attention it deserved. It is just tediously wrong.
    “Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” Terry Pratchett

  3. Top | #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    16,624
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    58,917
    Rep Power
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    This post of mine didn't get the attention it deserved. So, I have to try here, see if the Higher Spirit who is inhabiting this adobe can inspire proper cogitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...
    If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god
    Is that simple enough as a logical truth for you? Is that not intuitive? Can you even tell it's a logical truth or explain why it would or wouldn't be one?

    Me, I have a simple explanation. Do you have one?
    EB
    Ya, that doesn't make sense. It seems to me like you're saying that if a statement is false then the opposite of that statement is therefore true. The opposite could be false as well.

    Not having a god answer the prayers of people who pray says nothing about those who don't pray. It provides no premise whatsoever to get to your "therefore".

    Here's a rewording of your example:

    "If there is no gasoline in the gas can, then it is not true that if I fill my car's tank with it, my car will be able to drive. I don’t fill my car's tank with it; therefore, there is gasoline in the gas can".

    When you don't use it to fill your tank, you have no information about what's in the gas can. There might be gasoline in there, there might be water in there, it might be empty, etc. You haven't taken any steps at all to find out one way or the other.

  4. Top | #4
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    7,943
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    16,983
    Rep Power
    82
    In science, I might say,

    If there is no reaction between these chemicals, then when I add these ingredients, nothing will happen.
    I would be fool to then claim, "If I don't add these two chemicals together, that proves they will react."

    But that appears to be what you are doing.

  5. Top | #5
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,017
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,901
    Rep Power
    58
    Non sequitur. If you don't pray no prayer can be answered. Of course those who do pray should have prayers answered if God answers prayers. Scientific tests to establish that theory have failed. Prayers for hospital patients mean to test that proposition failed to show prayers are answered.
    Cheerful Charlie

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,103
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,691
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    This post of mine didn't get the attention it deserved. So, I have to try here, see if the Higher Spirit who is inhabiting this adobe can inspire proper cogitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...
    If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god
    Is that simple enough as a logical truth for you? Is that not intuitive? Can you even tell it's a logical truth or explain why it would or wouldn't be one?

    Me, I have a simple explanation. Do you have one?
    EB
    So, this bit of propositional logic is so simple it should be understood by all here. However, it happens to be a logical truth, i.e. it is always true, which should be a real shocker for most people here since it says there is a god.

    So, me, I have a simple explanation but this thread isn't about me. It's about you, and specifically whether you can question your own assumptions so as to get to the truth.

    So the question is as follows:

    Can you see intuitively whether it is a logical truth?

    So first, if you feel intuitively it is, please tell me if you feel comfortable with a piece of logic proving there is a god?

    Now, if you feel intuitively it's not a logical truth, then, just to make sure, how would you go about proving it isn't?

    For those who don't have any intuition about it, you can go in peace, there's a logical truth that says a god will provide somehow.

    And for all the few big mouths here who can't even argue their case, please don't waste your time, just abstain.

    Thank you to all.
    EB
    If you insist.

    I don't think the word "god" is precise enough to be used in this context (and I'm not sure there is any context in which it is), so I would say: "what's a god?" But let's say that "god" means an omnimax (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) agent (if you prefer to use another concept, pick your choice, but it's not relevant to the point I'm going to make).

    Let

    S1:= There is x such that x is a god.
    S2:= There is z such that z is a prayer said by Speakpigeon.
    S3:= There is y, z such that y is a god, z is a prayer by Speakpigeon, and y answers z.

    Your argument (leaving aside the indexical reference to simplify, and trying to render the part about praying and prayers more easy to address; if you think it makes a difference, please let me know and I will adjust the reply) seems to be:

    P1: ¬S1->¬(S2->S3).
    P2: ¬S2.
    C: S1.

    Sure, that is valid. But I see no good reason to think P1 is true. We're talking about a material conditional here. In fact, if P2 is true, I would argue that P1 is false, and to show that, I would of course argue that there is no god!
    Now, this is limited to the definition of "god" given above. If you prefer not to define "god", then I would go with "what's a god?", and ask for any argument supporting premise P1, given the fact that P2 is true.

  7. Top | #7
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    If you insist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I don't think the word "god" is precise enough to be used in this context (and I'm not sure there is any context in which it is), so I would say: "what's a god?" But let's say that "god" means an omnimax (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) agent (if you prefer to use another concept, pick your choice, but it's not relevant to the point I'm going to make).
    It is good enough that a god here be understood as whatever answers prayers and that we call "god". Good enough both for the purpose of doing logic here and as a proxy for whatever people call God that they think answers their prayers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Let

    S1:= There is x such that x is a god.
    S2:= There is z such that z is a prayer said by Speakpigeon.
    S3:= There is y, z such that y is a god, z is a prayer by Speakpigeon, and y answers z.

    Your argument (leaving aside the indexical reference to simplify, and trying to render the part about praying and prayers more easy to address; if you think it makes a difference, please let me know and I will adjust the reply) seems to be:

    P1: ¬S1->¬(S2->S3).
    P2: ¬S2.
    C: S1.
    OK, all good. Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Sure, that is valid.
    Ah, now you're talking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    But I see no good reason to think P1 is true.
    ???

    You see no reason to think that if there is no god, it is not true that if you pray then your prayers will be answered?!

    Please take some more time to think about it...

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    We're talking about a material conditional here. In fact, if P2 is true, I would argue that P1 is false
    And that would be wrong. There are two cases where both P1 and P2 are true. Something you could check easily enough for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    , and to show that, I would of course argue that there is no god!
    But P1 does assumes there is no god and still there are two cases where both P1 and P2 are true..

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Now, this is limited to the definition of "god" given above. If you prefer not to define "god", then I would go with "what's a god?", and ask for any argument supporting premise P1, given the fact that P2 is true.
    Whatever answers prayers and that we call "god" would do. With that assumption and two cases where both P1 and P2 are true, I'm sure all atheists should object.

    Please, look again at the conjunction "P1 and P2".

    Still, I'm not sure there's anything to argue about since you've admitted the thing is valid.
    EB

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    This post of mine didn't get the attention it deserved. So, I have to try here, see if the Higher Spirit who is inhabiting this adobe can inspire proper cogitation.

    Ya, that doesn't make sense. It seems to me like you're saying that if a statement is false then the opposite of that statement is therefore true. The opposite could be false as well.

    Not having a god answer the prayers of people who pray says nothing about those who don't pray. It provides no premise whatsoever to get to your "therefore".

    Here's a rewording of your example:

    "If there is no gasoline in the gas can, then it is not true that if I fill my car's tank with it, my car will be able to drive. I don’t fill my car's tank with it; therefore, there is gasoline in the gas can".

    When you don't use it to fill your tank, you have no information about what's in the gas can. There might be gasoline in there, there might be water in there, it might be empty, etc. You haven't taken any steps at all to find out one way or the other.
    It's not me saying it's true. I'm just reporting. The thing is a logical truth, or a tautology in modern lingo, and that's it. The paradox doesn't rely on the semantics of the words used. It's true due to form, like "X or not X" is true whatever X may be.
    EB

  9. Top | #9
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    Non sequitur. If you don't pray no prayer can be answered. Of course those who do pray should have prayers answered if God answers prayers. Scientific tests to establish that theory have failed. Prayers for hospital patients mean to test that proposition failed to show prayers are answered.
    That there is a god follows from te premises. Not me saying so. Just a fact. And the premises are very, very reasonable. No reason all atheists in the world shouldn't sign for them.
    EB

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by phands View Post
    It got exactly the attention it deserved. It is just tediously wrong.
    Well, then it should be piece of cake to explain. Could you please do that?
    EB

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,017
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,901
    Rep Power
    58
    If God answers prayers, but you have no prayer to answer, you get no prayer answered. How can that be wrong?

    If God answers prayers, we should see those that pray get their prayers answered. Each year, many children die in hospitals from cancer. All the prayers of sorrowful parents, grandparents and others have no effect. A basic fact of life.
    Cheerful Charlie

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •