Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
1. There is a God

Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[playhavock]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
1. There is a God

Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logical deduction?

No.
In fact, nothing can be demonstraded by logical deduction.
Thats - not what logic DOES - logic is a system that has rules and languge to its own - it can be utlised within a fraimwork that if all rules are followed and all premices are known to be true that the conclusion is a solid one. But that does not meen it is a true one. Only that within the augment it is found to be true.

In otherwords - we can use logical deduction to make an augment for something that does not exist in reality but we could make the augment to be logicaly valad in every premice and have the conclusion warrneted by the premices and yet still come up with a conclsion that is not actual in realty.

The power of logic is that it can be used as a tool to help us deside if an augment with premices is valad - the limmit of logic is that it is not a tool to help us deside if the conclusion is true in reality- only that it is logicaly valad.

We can auguge that life exists outside of that on planet earth with logic - and we can reach a conclusion within logic that concludes that it is valad that there is life outside of earth - but we can never be sure this is the case in reality, only that the augment is valad.

I had a problem myself when learning logic that the phiolipcy of logic was that one can reach a conclusion that can still be untrue - it seemed that then, logic was of no use - but it is - for augments that are logicaly valad are stronger and more possible then those that are not logicaly valad. So a logical augment in favor of life on other words lets one have good reasions for thinking that there can be life on other worlds - where as a bad augment for life on other worlds meens that one should be skeptical about life on other worlds. And no augment eather way meens one must simply say "I do not know" in regards to life on other worlds existance or non-existance.

So we come to "God" that is a non-defined word that can only be given a defention by the person or persons who belive in such a thing - that can not be shown using any emperical method or repeatable test and thus, could only reside within philosopic augment - and augments can be analised by logic.

So, the answer to your question is a "No" because nothing can be shown to be something that exists with logic, only that it is logical to conlcude that it should or can exist - even using dectivive logic one can not show something exists - only that it is logical to conclude that it might exist.

If I may, I would sugest the wording to be changed of the question at hand - perhaps to "What logical augments can be made for a God that are valad?"
Since , so far - no augments I have seen so far are logicaly valad this could produce, if nothing else - at least one augment for "God" of course, I would rather people explain what God IS first - but that is a side note.

[jimvansage]

Just out of curiosity, you would also contend that a deductive argument could not be made to prove that God doesn't exist, correct?

I'm not sure why you brought up empirical evidence when we are discussing logical proof of God. Are you saying that truth can only be known and/or concluded in a logically valid manner with empirical evidence?

For the moment, I'd just like to point out that there is a difference between an argument that is valid (the argument is arranged in logical form)
and an argument that is sound (the argument is valid and the propositions are true and the conclusion is warranted by the evidence/truth value of the propositions)

[McCulloch]

In my view, n things are necessary to demonstrate the existence of God:

1. A definition of what we mean when we use the term God that is not ambiguous, tautological or contradictory. This is not a trivial step. For example, using
   1. God is love.
   2. I love my wife.
   3. Therefore, God exists.
   I think that we can all agree this does not sufficiently meet the requirement. Similarly, God is a spirit does not help much, since that leaves the term spirit undefined. But clearly, before we can meaningfully begin to discuss the existence of God, we must agree on what we mean when we use the word.
2. A valid argument, where the conclusion is warranted by the truth of the propositions.
3. A demonstration that each of the propositions in step 2 are probably true.

Just out of curiosity, you would also contend that a deductive argument could not be made to prove that God doesn't exist, correct?

Lacking any demonstrated instance of a god, the default position would be that there isn't one. If we were talking about the existence of a unicorn, the debate would be ended simply by saying, "Here is one. " Without an example or an valid argument for the existence of X, we can provisionally disbelieve in the existence of X.

I'm not sure why you brought up empirical evidence when we are discussing logical proof of God. Are you saying that truth can only be known and/or concluded in a logically valid manner with empirical evidence?

I don't know. Is there some other kind of evidence? Can the existence of God be demonstrated without evidence? Doesn't Paul argue for the existence of God based on the evidence of Creation?

[Dantalion]

In my view, n things are necessary to demonstrate the existence of God:

1. A definition of what we mean when we use the term God that is not ambiguous, tautological or contradictory. This is not a trivial step. For example, using
   1. God is love.
   2. I love my wife.
   3. Therefore, God exists.
   I think that we can all agree this does not sufficiently meet the requirement. Similarly, God is a spirit does not help much, since that leaves the term spirit undefined. But clearly, before we can meaningfully begin to discuss the existence of God, we must agree on what we mean when we use the word.
2. A valid argument, where the conclusion is warranted by the truth of the propositions.
3. A demonstration that each of the propositions in step 2 are probably true.

Just out of curiosity, you would also contend that a deductive argument could not be made to prove that God doesn't exist, correct?

Lacking any demonstrated instance of a god, the default position would be that there isn't one. If we were talking about the existence of a unicorn, the debate would be ended simply by saying, "Here is one. " Without an example or an valid argument for the existence of X, we can provisionally disbelieve in the existence of X.

I'm not sure why you brought up empirical evidence when we are discussing logical proof of God. Are you saying that truth can only be known and/or concluded in a logically valid manner with empirical evidence?

I don't know. Is there some other kind of evidence? Can the existence of God be demonstrated without evidence? Doesn't Paul argue for the existence of God based on the evidence of Creation?

The OP deals with a very large number of debates going on around here.
Many theists have gotten it into their head that simply filling in A and B in a logical formula somehow validates their claims.
Um, what ?

If I jump in the sea, I get wet
I jump in the sea
Therefore I get wet

Why is this true ? not simply because it follows a logical formula, but because we can actually demonstrate it to be true.
Just filling in A and B with whatever comes to mind is a ridiculous attempt at validating baseless claims, and I'm very surprised people try to get away with it here.

[playhavock]

Just out of curiosity, you would also contend that a deductive argument could not be made to prove that God doesn't exist, correct?

No deductive arugment can prove.
You can only show that the conclusion of the augment is logicaly valad
and can be assumed to be true.

You can not use a deductive arugment to show that something is false.
You can only show that the conclusion of the augment is logicaly valad to conclude that we should assume it is false.

We can take an augment that is not logicaly valad to say that the conclusion should be viewed with skeptisem, because we can see the augument is not logicaly valad we must view the conclusion - no matter what the conccluions is - as something we must now be skeptical about - at least within the confines of said augument.

I'm not sure why you brought up empirical evidence when we are discussing logical proof of God. Are you saying that truth can only be known and/or concluded in a logically valid manner with empirical evidence?

Emeprical evedance beats out -- everything else. Hands down. You want proof that I did a crime - dna evedance BOOM I'm screwed! You want proof that I can levetae in the air - put me in a room that I cant set up in advance with multi camaras and observers on me with other messurement stuff STUFF looking at me, boom if I cant levetate myth busted. What other type of evedance is there - oh man people love to play around with "evedance" - ah man we have OTHER TYPES of evedance - why we have historcial evedance... man if I had money anytime I've seen this - well you cant be sure of this or that person in history if your going to be skeptical of MY histroy... no sir - I'm going to be freeking skeptical of ALL "histroy" that has MAGICAL STUFF GOING ON IN IT. Because I must use the SAME SYSTEM when looking at books that are... histroical in nature - the Koran, the Torra, the Shinto the Zinonist, the Egyiptan etc etc - anyone that makes claims that something magical happend - "supernatural" if you want- someone can fly, come back from life, heal people, whatever- we must MUST assume that this event PROBLEY DID NOT HAPPEN. Why - because we find today, that nothing we look at today can do this, no one can levetate, no one can heal, no one can do any of these things- no miricals occure today - none. Zip Zero. Nata. Nope. Does not happen. So we assume, you know - that it probley was the same in the past. And so we conclude that any historical writings that have stuff like that in it is made up - it didnt happen. The sky darkened - probley an ecclipss.

Yeah, I know it totaly destroys the whole "historical evedance" as a proof of anything because - its not proof of your document being true. If your document has magic (supernatural) stuff happening in it, we are going to be just as skeptical about it as ANY OTHER DOCUMENT. But man, people just love to say we have "other" types of evedance, even when we do not have any evedance of the thing AT ALL. I know I'm ranting but my word it makes my blood boil (not litterly that would kill me) it really irrates me - there simple IS NO OTHER TYPE OF EVEDANCE that is ... actual evedance. Should we be skeptical that George Washton existed - NO. Should we be skeptical that he choped down some cherry tree - YES. Should we be skeptical that Linkon never told a lie - HECK YES. Should we be skeptical that Linkcon fought vanpires- no there is a really good movie about this... wait no that ... thats a lame movie. no that never happened. Vanpires DONT EXIST. Yes, I can say that without offering a shread of proof about it - you want to prove vanpires exist, provide the EMPERICAL evedance. Otherwise - nope, you got nothing zero, zip, you got an agument - MAYBE you have a good augment - heck maybe you can make a LOGICAL agument about vanpires existing - and then - well then I'll admit that you have a great augment - and I'd love that , it would be something to look at and talk about - but if you dont have an augment - just admit it - just be honest with yourslef and others "i have no good augment for vanpires, I just want to belive that they exist without any evedance and with evedance to the contray I will still belive they exist because I want to delude myself" at least that is honest. Gahhhh... Irratation level over 9000. Okay... calming down...

[Goat]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
1. There is a God

Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logical deduction?

Neither the existence of God, or the lack of existence of God can be demonstrated by logical deduction. The premise's being used can not be shown to be true, the conclusion can not be shown to be true, and the probability of unknown factors influencing the potential chain of logic can not be ruled out.

Using the logical argument technique is not valid, nor convincing, unless you can have verification of the various steps, including and especially the conclusion.

[jimvansage]

I think we need an example of a valid argument and determine if it is sound.

A categorical syllogism in valid form:
1. All A's are B.
2. C is an A.
3. Therefore, C must also necessarily be a B.

Let's try this:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates must be mortal.

All men are mortal - how can this be proven to be true? How can it be tested?
Socrates is a man - same questions...
But is both are true (and the argument is valid) then the argument is sound and the conclusion must be true.

If not with 100% certainty, how much certainty are we talking about?

[playhavock]

I think we need an example of a valid argument and determine if it is sound.

A categorical syllogism in valid form:
1. All A's are B.
2. C is an A.
3. Therefore, C must also necessarily be a B.

Let's try this:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates must be mortal.

All men are mortal - how can this be proven to be true? How can it be tested?
Socrates is a man - same questions...
But is both are true (and the argument is valid) then the argument is sound and the conclusion must be true.

If not with 100% certainty, how much certainty are we talking about?

Again, with logic it is nothing to do with being certain only that the conclusion is logicaly valad. With the above - you have logicaly shown that Socrates should be logicaly viewed as mortal. We can assume he is mortal untill we have an augment and/or evedance that sugests that he is not mortal. IF the premices are flawed we must conclude that the conclusion - even if we know it to be true - is one we can not view as logicaly sound.

We can only know that Socrates is mortal when he dies. But, we can know via all other prevous obervations of humans and men that if Socrates is a man that he will die at some point in time. We can know this becuase all knowalge of all men show that all men so far have died - in other words- the scientific method is the one that brings us KNOWING. Logic has its place in sceince, and outside of it - it alows us to criticaly analise ideas as objects and to deconstcut there logic or lack there of. We are using basicly (infomral) logic here to deduce if Socrates is a man and if all men are mortal, then he is mortal, and the conlsuion follows from the
premices - but it could in theroy - somehow be false. We do not expect this to be true - but it might be. We simply can not use logic to arvive at fact - only a logical conclusion.

All things that exist at all can be observed in some way by the scientific method.
(G) has never been observed by the scientific method.
Thus there is no (G).

Now, if the premices are true - and they might be - one could give reaions to suprot them and think they are - then the concllusion follows LOGICALY - but in fact, it might not be true. There might be a (G) that is unobserved by science -most relgous people claim this is in fact the actual (G) and my question is always "how do you know that is true without any way to test the idea?!" But - of course everyone has some answer for that... still an augment can not show us something is or is not - only that a concluion is or is not logicaly valad.

Only the scientific method can let us KNOW that something is true. Although, oddly enough there will be those who auguge with that premice as well... I'm not sure what to do with those people - but - whatever the truth is - IS.

Logic can help - it is a tool to be sure - but it can not do the function that you are asking it to do here.

[McCulloch]

Let's try this:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates must be mortal.

All men are mortal - how can this be proven to be true? How can it be tested?
Socrates is a man - same questions...
But is both are true (and the argument is valid) then the argument is sound and the conclusion must be true.

If not with 100% certainty, how much certainty are we talking about?

All men are mortal. According to biological science, this is true. Humans are animals. No animal is immortal. However, if you reject biological science as certain religious folks do, then you might have a problem with this premise.

Socrates is a man. Any other possibility does seem to have a rather low probability.

• Socrates is fictional; rejected by most competent historians
• Socrates is extra-terrestrial; a claim completely lacking in evidence.
• Socrates is robotic; not only lacking any evidence but an unrealistic expectation of the existing technology.
• Socrates is a divine son of a god; Not too likely, unless you are religious perhaps.

It appears to me that religion renders the result of this syllogism to be less certain than not having religion.


But, most importantly, we have not yet agreed on the meaning of the word God. All this talk about logic, evidence, syllogism, premises and conclusions is meaningless until we know what it is that we are trying to prove. What does it mean that God exists? What is God? How can we even begin the process of discussing the proof of God's existence if we don't know what God is?