John Page

From the mind that brought you �God of Entropy� and �The Church of the Excluded Middle� now comes �The God Theorem�. The theorem is about the monotheistic god, not any old god you may care to fabricate such as the IPU, catholic god or George the Turnip, but good ol� honest to god �god�.

Setting the stage, here are two definitions from Dillons� Modern English Dictionary. �Tautology� is defined as a proposition that is always true. �Syllogism� is a deductive inference by which a conclusion is derived from two propositions.

Introducing the opponents for this bout: In the red corner, the definition of god as �I am�, �I am who I am�, �The one through whom all things are known�, �The infinite� or any other religious tautology defining the �one true god�. In the blue corner we have propositional logic, for which The Law of Identity is also a tautology, represented as �x = x�. To evaluate this match-up I have �split� these �atomic statements� into syllogisms using the God Theorem.

The God Theorem takes any tautology and shows how the �axiomatic concept� and the �identity� of a tautological subject (god, x in the Law of Identity, whatever) are related. Here�s the essence of my contention: a) a monotheistic god reduces to a tautology; b) all tautologies are abstract concepts comprising an abstract axiomatic concept plus an arbitrary label (identity); c) therefore a monotheistic god can only exist in the abstract. The Law of Identity survives the test because it makes no existential claims.

Oh yes, almost forgot, here�s <a href="http://www.reconciliationism.org/god_theorem.htm" target="_blank">hyperlink to the God Theorem</a>, its not literally in this post because of the subscript and logic notation in the formulae. Perhaps I should put a �god under construction� graphic on it! I�m looking forward to comments from atheists and theists alike.

Cheers!

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

John Page,

Your argument is essentially...
A few notes...

Statement A) is dubious. Simply stating X is a tautology carries little weight. It would be much more convincing if you showed how the concept of God (I assume JC) is a tautology. Perhaps if you showed the footwork needed to reduce God to a tautology this point could be argued less.

Statement B) is most assuredly false. The statement 'John is a man...he is a man named John' is a tautology but it is not what most would consider 1-'abstract' or 2-only conceptual.

The claim that 'John' does not really exist (is only an abstract concept) is completely false.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

John Page

SOMMS:

Thank you, to respond:

1. A tautology is defintely an abstract concept. Literally, your sentence is made up of words that represent and convey the concept of a tautology. If a tautology is not abstract, where can I put my hands on one?

2. "Man" is assuredly a concept and an axiomatic one at that. "John is a man" is a definition, not a tautology, (because the statement would not be true if John were not a man - see definition of tautology). You can touch an instance of a reality that you recognize as a man but you cannot touch the concept of "man".

Note on the Theory of Forms: Knowledge of the God Theorem for example, would have allowed Socrates to respond (sarcastically) to Parmenides� question regarding his Theory of abstract Forms - as to where the �absolute form of man� comes from - by saying �By Zeus, everyone�s mind learns to recognize a man by comparing it with their concept of you, Parmenides, the paragon of men�.

3. So, the key difference between the axiomatic concept "god" and the axiomatic concept "man" is that the latter is a 'prototype' developed from existential experience wheras the former is defined tautologically. For example, if I spoke the tautology "man is man" there is no external reference and therefore no assurances about what I mean by "man". Substitute "god" or any other word for "man" and the conclusion is the same.

3. My a priori statement is to define theistic god as a tautology. Agreed, this is an assumption, I don't have an argument that covers all definitions of a theistic god. However, I think that the examples I do give define (some) theistic god concepts as tautologies e.g. "I am who I am". It is such concepts that my Theorem attacks.

I can't control believers' shifting definitions of god, however, I observe that the most difficult definition to attack is the tautological one. It like attacking the Law of Identity, as I mention in my preamble. My God Theorem is an attempt at showing where theism is flawed but propositional logic is not.

Cheers!

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>