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>