anonymousj

With authors of logic texts, let us understand a sound argument to be an argument with all true premises in which the conclusion follows from the premises.

Then, let us hold that a sound argument for Pis a proof that P.

"God" will refer to the Christian God.

Argument G: A proof that God exists.

1. If something exists, then God exists.

2. Something exists.
----
3. God exists.


Some preliminary, anticipatory comments.

i) This argument is a proof that there is a God. It is notoffered as a proof that (1), 'If something exists, then God exists'.

ii) It is not part of the definition of 'proof' here that every premise in the argument must be proved (this would be a condition on proof that couldn't be satisfied anywhere, and hence, it is a reductioon this as a conditon on 'proof').

iii) In order to show that this is not a proof, one must either show that one or more of the premises is false, or that the argument is invalid, or that the notion of proof it satisfies is, in some way, deficient. One can, of course, stipulate any notion of proof that one likes. The above notion is, intuitively speaking, what most seem to have in mind.


This should get things going!

cheers,

anonymousj

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: anonymousj ]</p>

Ender

How about this:

• P1: No assertion is demonstrable unless its negation is contradictory.
• P2: No negation of a matter of fact is contradictory.
• P3: All assertions about the existence of things are matter of facts.
• C1: Therefore, no negation of an assertion that some things exist is contradictory.
• C2: Hence there is no thing which existence is demonstrable.

I use the word "demonstrable" similar to the definition of "necessary." Ergo, this leads to the inference that any propositions of the form "necessary existence" or "demonstrable existence are vacuous and meaningless.

~WiGGiN~

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Automaton

Wow, some nice sophistry. Why don't you check out my <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000279" target="_blank">Ontological proof that I am God</a>?

Your argument follows the syllogic:<ol type="1">[*]B -&gt; A[*]B[*]A[/list=a]This can be reversed in interesting ways, for example:<ol type="1">[*]B -&gt; ~A[*]B[*]~A[/list=a]In which premise 1 is equally as valid. Enjoy.

anonymousj

Automaton,

'Something exists' is uncontroversially true.

Since that is so, premise 1 of my argument and premise 1 of your 'reversal' cannot both be true. So, your claim that your 1 is 'equally as valid' is false (assuming I understand what you mean by 'equally as valid')

cheers,

anonymousj

Ender

Very trifling and trivially so.

How does it follow that "God exist"?
How does (whatever your answer is) not include these concepts: "Zeus" or "Vishnu" or "Baal" or "square root of negative one" or "Eros" or "quintessential force"?

It sounds like an illegal existential quantifier shift, similar to what the Bishop Berkeley did with his arguments against materialism.
~WiGGiN~

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Vorkosigan

bwahahahahaha! &lt;gasp&gt; &lt;snort&gt; &lt;snicker&gt;

And now, on to more serious arguments.

Vorkosigan

anonymousj

Ender,

Are you questioning the validity of the argument? If not, then what?

???? No idea of what you are talking about here.

Well, it isn't! If you think so, show how, please!


cheers,

anonymousj

anonymousj

Ender,
Can you focus your objection a little more clearly, please! About the only thing I can thinnk of to say here is that the argument merely demonstrates the existence of God, not the necessary existence, but I am not sure that this is even relevant to your objection.

cheers,

anonymousj

Silent Dave

G is not a proof because the notion of proof it satisfies is deficient in that it assumes that a premise is assumed to be true until proven false.


Dave

anonymousj

Silent Dave,

It does not!

cheers,

anonymousj