Feather

Here's an argument as presented to me, in pseudo symbolic logic, followed by a "translation" into english.

Proof:

God := that which cannot be conceived not to exist
G:= God Exists
C:= it is conceivable that
p:= any proposition.

1. p => Cp
2. ~Cp => ~p
3. ~C~G => G
4. G.

OR

1. If a proposition is true, then it is conceivable that it is true.
2. If it is not conceivable that a proposition is true, then the proposition is false.
3. If it is not conceivable that God does not exist, then God Exists.
4. Since, by definition, it is not conceivable that God does not exist, God Exists.


What are your opinions? (Just to clear things up: I don't think the argument is sound at all.)

Koyaanisqatsi

Quite possibly the stupidest argument I've ever read here.

Not exactly a "value added" comment, I grant you, but what the hey.

Philosoft

I am having a great deal of trouble conceiving anything that doesn't exist.

Mageth

That's more like a "poof" than a proof.

John Page

That's because it doesn't exist

Anyway, as to the argument, just because you conceive something exists, doesn't mean to say it does. (See line 4, take out the double negatives)

Cheers, John

Toto

It reasons from false premises using circular logic.

1 and 2 are false to start out with. "Conceivable" is not a well-defined term - it appears to refer to some person's psychological ability to imagine something. I don't see how that relates to whether it was true.

For example, Quantum Mechanics appears to be true (makes accurate predictions) but is not "conceivable".

For most of human history, lots of ideas that are now accepted were "inconceivable" = space travel, genetically modified foods, etc. How can you say they were not true 2000 years ago merely because no one could conceive of them?

But the whole thing depends on defining God as "that which cannot be conceived not to exist." So if a fundamentalist is too stupid to conceive of the possibility that God does not exist, does that prove that God exists?

Or if I decide that it is inconceivable that Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms do not exist, does that make H2O God?

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

So, because I can imagine God, God is real?

Well, a real concept, maybe.

I have no problem admitting that God exists as a concept in the minds of a great many human beings.

But, that is hardly the same as saying that there is a thing in reality which correctly corresponds to that concept.

I can certainly conceive of a situation whereby the universe would not require the existence of God to be as it is.

(Like, the situation as it currently exists, for example.)

Keith.

E_muse

The main crux of the arguement seems to rest at 4.

If 4 is true, and we cannot conceive of 'no God' then this would only be a comment on our own conceptual abilities.

It certainly would not provide any evidence that what must exist out of necessity in our minds had any ontological counterpart.

As it stands, 4 is not true in any absolute sense and many people can conceive of a world with no God. Consequently, the truthfulness of 4 only applies to the person presenting the arguement if they are making this the basis of a defence of God's existence.

Ion

'4.' is false.

Instead of '4', the following is true:
"...by definition,..." of today's reality backed up by consistent material proofs, it is "...conceivable that God does not exist,..." other than being a religious concept attempting long ago to uncover the nature, by primitives.

braces_for_impact

Replace "God" with "Santa Claus" to see why this logic doesn't hold water. Thank you for your attention.