A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

[TheChristianEgoist]

This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/

1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.

2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.

3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.

5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).

6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).

7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.

8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.

9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.

[micatala]

.

You say its possible (I.E., it has a greater than 0% probability) that you can roll an 18 with an unknown number of dice in a bag.

I open the bag and reveal 1 die. The probability is 0%. Its not possible to roll an 18. But before you said it was possible but now its not possible. That seems like a contradiction.

I would agree with your answers if i said "i put a random number of dice in a bag". But i didn't. There is an unknown number if dice in the bag. Not a random amount if dice in the bag. I think that makes a difference.

Consider the Monty Hall problem. There is a prize behind one of three doors and a goat behind the other two doors.

Is it possible for the prize to be behind door number 1? Yes.
Is it possible for the prize to be behind door number 2? Yes.
Is it possible for the prize to be behind door number 3? Yes.
Is it possible for the prize to be behind more than one door? No.

Did I just contradict myself by saying the prize can be behind three doors and also only one door? No. I am only using the word possible to refer to two different concepts.

In the first three statements, the possible refers to probability, there is a 33% possibility that the prize is behind any of the three doors.
In the fourth statement, possible refers to the logical possibility of the prize being behind more than one door.

In your example, there is an unknown number if dice in the bag, it is possible to roll an 18. Here the word possible is used to convey that there is no logical reason why there can't be 3-18 dice in the bag, so it is possible.

I still think that we are just talking behind the language barrier, the word possible just conveys too many meanings.

The word possible can convey ignorance as in the three doors, or it can convey logical possibility and a few other concepts as well, so we need to be careful that we don't commit the fallacy of equivocation.

Is it possible to find a value for x, y and θ to make both these statements true?

y = sec² θ - tan² θ - x

y / x = 2 cos θ sec θ / x - 1

Well anything is possible, but it is not possible for me. (my math skills is the root of my problem) [see how the word possible is used to convey two different meanings in the same sentence?]

But the truth be told, a person with enough math skills will be able to say that it is either impossible or certain that there exists an x, y and θ that will satisfy both equations. Certain or certainly not there is no possible. Do or Do not there is no try.

For anyone who cares, no, there is no combination of x, y, and θ that makes both equations true. If you multiply the second equation by x on both sides, and set the expressions for y equal to each other, you get

2cos θ sec θ - x = sec² θ - tan² θ - x

You can cancel the x's on each side, and note that sec θ = 1/cos θ and
tan θ =( sin θ) / (cos θ).

On the left side, you get 2. On the right side, since 1 - sin² θ is the same as the square of cos θ, you get 1. Clearly, 2 does not equal 1.

[otseng]

how the hell should I know

Please avoid usage of any profanity.

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JohnA]

This being is one singular identifiable being and does not violate the law of identity, without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction

Can you show that any direct or indirect implications of the existence of such a being that constructed the universe and space/time doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction? So far you have just asserted that it doesn't.

Sure, God is A and is not ~A.

Great, let me now prove the logical possibility of Christian God: Christian God is A and is not ~A

See how you are doing the exact thing you were complaining about, merely asserting that your example complies with the laws of logic?

Here are some other laws of logic, please show that the above being and all it's implications comply with all of these laws (also make sure to prove me that there aren't additional laws of logic that we haven't yet discovered that might contradict your above claim). Either this or admit that it is unreasonable demand to ask someone to demonstrate that his claim complies with every law of logic (i.e. is logically possible).

I can see a strawman approaching.

The three laws mentioned are the very fundamentals of logic, from them all other logical forms and laws are derived. Very little can be gained by over analyzing, it's simply not necessary.

Nonsense and a cop-out. Something is logically possible if and only if it doesn't contradict any laws of logic, you haven't demonstrated logical possibility until you have demonstrated compliance with every single law of logic and proven that you are dealing with an exhaustive list. Is this a reasonable demand? I'd say no.

So you are saying that EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is logically possible since YOU KNOW that there are LAWS of LOGIC not yet discovered.

Oh dear.

[JohnA]

Your last sentence is begging the question. I covered that many pages ago with another user. You can not define something as true what you teeing to argue is true. I expected nothing less from you.

My concern is what you wrote here:

Since the laws of logic are not exhaustively listed anywhere

Can you explain this?
What are laws of logic? How do you know what these are if they are not written down? How do you know they are not written down? Which ones are written down and which ones are not?
What makes these 'laws' laws, why not just principles or rules?


And here you go and try to say that 'logical' possible /impossible are commonly accepted definitions yet you claim the logic laws are not even known (not written down).

Circular self refuting arguments constraints progress.
Please post your mental gymnastics to get out of this delightful no boundary position you find yourself in.

Every argument you come across that uses a definition that supports a claim you disagree with you argue is begging the question. He is not making a random definition to suit his needs, his argument merely fits the definition that is in place!

What he means by not exhaustively listed is that not every single logical law that can be known to describe logic is currently known and listed. There are still many though that are written down and have been agreed upon by logicians and society as a whole to describe logic and its processes.

And yes, logically possible and logically impossible are commonly accepted definitions. They would be included within the laws that are listed and known.

People define gods into existence all the time and claim you can not touch it. However, when one looks at the attributes of these gods you could very easily point where it fails basic logic.

The same standard as above was applied to instantc's claim. He merely defined it into existence and then argue that you can not touch it. If all the "laws" of logic has not been "discovered" yet, then logic is illogical, since you do not know what it is but you claim you know what it is because it has not yet been discovered. How absurd. How can anyone buy into this nonsense?

How do you know that there are laws of logic not discovered yet?
Last time I checked there were 3 Logical rules of inference/thought in logic (identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle). THERE ARE NO LAWS OF LOGIC. These axiomatic rules or linguistic principles can not be proved or disproved, they are merely assumed.

I asked these questions so that the respondent can realize for himself how patently absurd his claims are. You fell for the same mistake since you REFUSED to answer the questions.


Ridiculous claims should be called out.
This dice example shows that this "logical possible/impossible" rubbish is just that: rubbish. Not everything is binary.

Am sure you have content to contribute to this thread, and not just a random rambling cause some other posters claims was absurd and you want to agree with absurdity and in order to disagree with rationality.

I make no excuse for my lack of incoherency.

[olavisjo]

.

How do you know that there are laws of logic not discovered yet?
Last time I checked there were 3 Logical rules of inference/thought in logic (identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle). THERE ARE NO LAWS OF LOGIC. These axiomatic rules or linguistic principles can not be proved or disproved, they are merely assumed.

Then we can rephrase the question.

How do you know that there are no "axiomatic rules or linguistic principles" that we have not "merely assumed" yet?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 235 by olavisjo]

I do not know, that is why I am asking.

[olavisjo]

.

How do you know that there are no "axiomatic rules or linguistic principles" that we have not "merely assumed" yet?

I do not know, that is why I am asking.

Then you are essentially agreeing with instantc.

Since the laws of logic are not exhaustively listed anywhere, it is impossible to convey a survey that would conclusively show that a claim doesn't contradict any laws of logic.

He just uses the term "law of logic" to refer to the same concept that you call "Logical rules of inference/thought".

Rule and law are synonymous.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 237 by olavisjo]

Rules and laws are not the same thing.

I am not agreeing with instantc. I said that there are 3 rules. He says there are more.

I do not know is the answer to your question that I do not know.

[olavisjo]

.

Rules and laws are not the same thing.

What would be the difference between the rules of logic, the laws of logic and the principles of logic?

I am not agreeing with instantc. I said that there are 3 rules. He says there are more.

I do not know is the answer to your question that I do not know.

If you don't know that there are not more rules of logic, how can you say that there are not more rules of logic?

[JohnA]

.

Rules and laws are not the same thing.

What would be the difference between the rules of logic, the laws of logic and the principles of logic?

I am not agreeing with instantc. I said that there are 3 rules. He says there are more.

I do not know is the answer to your question that I do not know.

If you don't know that there are not more rules of logic, how can you say that there are not more rules of logic?

There are no laws of logic. None that I am aware of.

As far as my research goes, I have only found 3 rules of logic. I do not know if there are more, there may be and there may not be. But instantc says there are more. So, I am asking HIM how does he know this.

I can guess what you are trying to do. You are trying to straw man me. Keep trying please. My prediction is that you will revert to slander similar to what instantc does when he can not meet his burden or you will go away and practice your fallacies on someone else. Are you happy with that?