From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

[irichc]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Charlie]

Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

This is semantic bullshit. I can say that if truth is absolute, then there is no beginning, or end, and can rest on its own, inviolate. I can call Truth a banana. Has a banana ever lied to you?

Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

Why is any Truth unattainable? To the contrary, by virtue of its verisimilitude, truths are not hidden, grandiose or “supreme”. They are unshrinking, naked and unmoved by time. They are certainly not owned by God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

An infinite progession of truths is certainly a pure road. Why can’t this lead to our own unblemished nature, and not to some “other” outside of ourselves, which creates dualism?

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

No, it doesn’t, because the house of cards you’ve built in your previous propositions assume that truth is God-like.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

So without God, there is no truth. And if there is no truth, there is no God. My 8-year-old boy can come up with more clever logic.

I apologize to everyone on this board for my tirade, but I am an unapologetic atheist, and this kind of prostletyzing crap gets tiring to me. I have to fight against it all the time here in ultra-Catholic Spain, as the schools and my in-laws try to soft-sell their blood-stained, hypocritical dogma to my kids. (Would you like some candy little girl? You can have all you want after the ceremony!)

Jeez…

[Lowlight]

irichc - the problem is that you dont even define God. i mean, even if your logic was not flawed then the conception of God that would result would not be a christian one, it would be beyond all we can imagine. Christ etc would have no relevence to it. not only that but you are assuming that there is truth in an absolute sense, something you dont actually know, so you started from a position that doesnt even have a solid basis, its just shakey logic built upon conjecture.

[irichc]

Proving 1).

Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.

We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.

So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.

Proving 2).

I.

In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.

If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that “the truth is the truth”, since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.

II.

1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.

1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.

1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.

1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.

1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

1.2.2. If it has not a first Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.

The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[sidecross]

“Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations.”

As I have written before, Kurt Gödel has shown in his Incompleteness Theorem that arthmatic is not an absolute truth. Gödel has shown that with in any system you can not use that system to prove an absolute. 2 plus 2 = 4 is not an absolute.

Language is even less specific in forming an absolute.

[ September 18, 2004, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: sidecross ]

[Halfglass]

Although I'm not an atheist as it is generally defined, I do know of an Otherside of sorts--which is probably all self/It--paradox...bla bla, anyway it's no judge in the sky. People who are unwilling to take a real look or pull the face off of The Wizard of Oz, can only be left with self-reflections of what they would like it all to be or mean.

Mathematics did not appear out of nothing and nowhere--as some cosmologists believe the universe did. It was created by human beings. As such, math reflects many aspects of humanity, including physical charateristics, phychology, and culture. The way our bodies and brains work have molded not only the study of mathmatics, but also our everyday perceptions of "things."

...We can see the recurring theme in human evolution, the same strategies that serve as stepping-stones to some truths have become the objects we trip over in pursuit of others in different contexts. (Look at overpopulation, national budgets whatever, the proof is all around you.)

[ September 19, 2004, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[forteanajones]

The "1 = 2" thing is a common trick used for testing beginning logic students. You get your audience to accept an assumption early on without realizing it, then later they can't work their way out of the trap until they revisit their assumptions. I think Robert Anton Wilson had some things to say on this.

Halfglass: your math comment reminded me of the logos thread (http://www.breakingopenthehead.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000118#000000). Personally I believe in God (not the judge in the sky kind), but I don't believe proving His/Her existence is as easy as some hope, nor is it really necessary. And, for now, I fully accept the idea that I could be mistaken and suffering from my own dogmas despite the feeling of conviction.

[daniel]

I like the idea that "god" is more self-organization from below than imposition from above.

[Humming]

God is a mud puddle.

If you sit still long enough, watching, the medium will clear and you will find only yourself reflected in it.

[Lowlight]

I think God is not really a useful word anymore because of the connotations it has, esp in the West (guy in the sky etc). Concepts of the holy or divine are terms i prefer, or even talking of higher consciousness itself. I still think that we can see reality as sacred though, even without god. This is something that many atheists/nihilists/agnostics miss, there are so many ways to sacralise reality without appealing to Judaic-Christian meta-narratives.

[Halfglass]

Humming: Yes the secret in the end is ultimately; THOUGHTS are MUD!

Forteanajones: How do you pull up a link like that? I'm such a neandertal wid computers. I took a look at Z's bit there; are you thinking the logos knows all about long division? (lol kidding kind-of)...maybe It's the other way around. That's the problem with me and math itself, no one really knows why numbers do not, in the end lead in a straight line, numbers/equasions split and cotradict in the long run. But like the paradoxes scientists run into in quantum physics, I don't have to be a PhD. to understand that mathmaticians can't explain away paradox either! Read "The Universe and the Tea Cup" (I forget the writers name, nice little mind-candy ride for the lay-person into how strange numbers can be.) (If I remember right, one was: If the head of a pin were as hot as the center of the sun nobody could stand within 1000 miles of it, and other neat stuff....later Dan.

[ September 21, 2004, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[Adame]

-God is Love.
-Love is Blind.
-Stevie Wonder is Blind.
--------------------------
Stevie Wonder is God.

[nanouk]

lol last time i discussed Logos, The "Godhead" in all of us, the young couple turned out to be new born christians(Oooops!) and fiercely cornered me shouting how dare you calling yourself G*D!!!
Oooops! lol, so i keep quiet now...most people do not seem to see beyond their beliefs that G*D is a person sitting on the clouds, judging and applauding us for our sins and deeds...and yeah i love this one: "Cleanliness is Godlineess"

god is all that is...

with love and respect,

nanouk

[Charlie]

Stevie Wonder was God until he released "Ebony and Ivory" with Paul McCartney.

With that song, he became the ersatz, Muzak God.

[nanouk]

*lol*

[forteanajones]

Halfglass, sorry I missed your post before. (1) Click the little "URL" button below the box you type your message in, (2) fill in the blanks. I think you might be wondering how to know what page you're actually browsing on, but that would be telling. ;) (The way the BOTH site is set up, hiding the URL address field was intended for some reason).

[nanouk]

"This is semantic bullshit. I can say that if truth is absolute, then there is no beginning, or end, and can rest on its own, inviolate. I can call Truth a banana. Has a banana ever lied to you?"

Bless You, Charlie.

(just reading back catalogue again)

Love and Respect,

n.

[jalien]

this reminds me of the ontological argument
one of 3 main western philosophical "proofs"
for the existence of GOD [why do i think "Giant Orange Dog" as i write this?]

anyway you will be familiar with the first two:

the cosmological argument
every effect has a cause, nothing causes itself
if we trace back we must therefore find a first cause that first cause we call GOD

the teleological argument
everything is ordered and exact in its workings
chance produces chaos, not order
so there must be an order maker we call GOD

christians use these first two arguments, though it is possible to put them more compellingly and elegantly than i have

the third argument is close to what irichc proposes: the ontological argument. christians dont use it often, perhaps because as it is usually presented it is very tricky indeed

but i know how to express it simply:

the ontological argument

1) GOD is the being such that no greater (being) can be thought

2) now consider two possible gods
A) A god who has all great qualities but does not actually exist
B) A GOD with the same qualites as A) with the additional quality of actually existing

3) GOD B) is greater than god A) by virtue of actually existing

4) given proposition 1) god A) is not the greatest being that can be thought, since an existent GOD is clearly greater than a nonexistent one

5) therefore GOD exists

now i wont go into it in detail but all three arguments are considered refuted by academic philosophers. Kant did that job well apparently

but you still find them bandied about by everyday countryfolk

most apparent to me though, is i need to score some weed so i can go back to xbox games and other mindless fun rather than ranting on the BBs

http://www.visionaryart.biz/elf.gif
nanokiwi.com (http://nanokiwi.com)

[Horse Nation]

Well....Uh....Good thing His (Its) Holiness isn't Ray Charles; then Nietzsche's "God is Dead" becomes true.

in Love and Victory,

~Meph

[Horse Nation]

Originally posted by Nanouk:
Has a banana ever lied to you?"No, but an orange dared to look at me the wrong way. Once.

in Love and Victory,

~Meph

[nanouk]

yes those citrus fruits have a tendency to threaten with biological warfare...i was actually quoting Charlie's brilliant post, the second one in this thread...

a good friend of mine is convinced that Lemmy of Motörhead is G*D, if a Democratic President is supposed to mirror the inner soul of the People,

originally posted by Sidecross in 'Kerry Won':
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day,
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White
House will be adorned by a downright moron."
--- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956

couldn't The Creator too?

Love and Respect,

n.

[Lowlight]

The ontological argument is often disregarded but apparently if you can fully understand modal logic (there are only a few people on earth who actually fully comprehend it) then you realise that it must be true. I think it was Alvin
Plantinga who said this.

[Halfglass]

Lowlight and others: What's wrong with this statment from a disillusioned Roman soldier: "All Romans are liars!" (?)

Or how 'bout: "There is no such thing as objective truth!" (?)

[ November 07, 2004, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[nanouk]

just looked up alvin plantinga, i will have a lot of spare time reading here!

love and respect,

n.

[Lowlight]

yeah i know, its self defeating and leaves you with nothing, but i dont even know whether plantinga is right as i was told that about him but have never had the chance to check up on modal logic. I dont think it purports to prove what type of god there is rather that there has to be a higher reality. peace

[jalien]

well i didnt think i'd
here the name plantinga again
i actually spoke to the man once
i asked him about those who
have no sense of god

he said that with such people
their "sensusdivinitatus" had shrivelled

perhaps he should have
made some reference to
shrooms with a *wink*
would have saved me

thanks for the Mencken quote
blogged that one

http://www.visionaryart.biz/elf.gif
nanokiwi.com (http://nanokiwi.com)

john allegra
life plantinga supposed to be
a great theist of our times
must have pissed christians off
when sent to translate the bible
returning years later with
"the sacred mushroom and the cross"