A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

TheChristianEgoist · Post by **TheChristianEgoist** » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:05 pm

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 â€“ 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 â€“ 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 â€˜triggerâ€™ 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.

Filthy Tugboat · Post by **Filthy Tugboat** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:45 am

instantc wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
instantc wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
instantc wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote: People incorrectly use the word possible and then build arguments off of their incorrect word use. I see it with theists positing God more often than I can count. They say, that because God's existence is possible, yada yada yada. Well guess what, I can stop them right on premise one and say, "Is it?" "Show me how it's possible." They say that ignorance of something means it is possible. Which is stupid and not logical argument at all. You are insisting it is valid.
Well, it is logically possible that God exists, unless God's existence contradicts one or more laws of logic.
Does God's existence contradict one or more laws of logic? You'd have to give an example of a God here, there are countless different versions and more being created every second of every day. Every time a believer learns something knew and evolves their opinion of God they are thinking of a different God than the one they were before.

To me, it's an unanswerable question because a lot of people that believe in God also believe that God is beyond comprehension, explanation and understanding. I doubt it's demonstrable that God's existence is possible and no one has succeeded in demonstrating the possibility to me.
Since we are here and now talking about logical possibilities, something is possible if it doesn't contradict the laws of logic.
Is it? We haven't even mentioned any qualities or anything about this God, I think making assumptions on the matter for no other reason than, "it's being discussed" isn't really logical.
I'm not endorsing the claim that God is logically possible, I'm merely explaining logical possibility and why it is an unreasonable demand to ask someone demonstrate the logical possibility of something.

If someone claims that something is true, "God is logically possible" then it is on them to show that this claim is actually true. I am not the one that understand or claims to understand this "God" in any capacity, how the hell should I know whether it's possible or not? This other person on the other hand does claim to know this. They claim to know this and then they tell me it's true and that because this is true, then all of these other things must be true. Well sorry, if you can not or are not willing to show that it is true, then I am not going to accept that it is.

instantc wrote:If you think a claim contradicts the laws of logic, it's up to you to show which one.

And if you are asserting that it is logically consistent, then it's up to you to show that it is.

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:50 am

Filthy Tugboat wrote:
instantc wrote:If you think a claim contradicts the laws of logic, it's up to you to show which one.
And if you are asserting that it is logically consistent, then it's up to you to show that it is.

How on earth does one show that something is logically consistent, if it is not physically demonstrable at the spot? Can you show me that it is logically possible to build a tower that is 5000 feet tall? Should I suspend my belief that such a tower is logically possible, since nobody can show it? This whole exercise is pointless, since I know very well that such a tower is logically possible, and so do you, even though we cannot conclusively prove that it complies with every law of logic.

Can you show me that the claim 'it will rain tomorrow' complies with the law of non-contradiction in any other way than simply by asserting that there is nothing in the rain drops falling from the sky that contradicts itself logically?

As I said, that's an unreasonable demand that defeats the whole purpose of the concept, but you are free to accept or reject whatever you want.

Filthy Tugboat · Post by **Filthy Tugboat** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:05 am

instantc wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote:
instantc wrote:If you think a claim contradicts the laws of logic, it's up to you to show which one.
And if you are asserting that it is logically consistent, then it's up to you to show that it is.
How on earth does one show that something is logically consistent, if it is not physically demonstrable at the spot? Can you show me that it is logically possible to build a tower that is 5000 feet tall? Should I suspend my belief that such a tower is logically possible, since nobody can show it? This whole exercise is pointless, since I know very well that such a tower is logically possible, and so do you, even though we cannot conclusively prove that it complies with every law of logic.

I honestly don't know, what would it require to build a tower that is 5000 feet tall? I would assume, if we had the drive, the man power and the materials/funding, it might be possible. But I don't know enough about that kind of building to say, "no laws of logic would be violated in creating this structure." I'm just not familiar enough with the methodology behind building skyscrapers.

instantc wrote:As I said, that's an unreasonable demand that defeats the whole purpose of the concept, but you are free to accept or reject whatever you want.

Is it? If someone rests an argument on this one thing and just says, "accept it on faith" should we just accept it? Or should we question it? I don't think leaving one topic of debate as "take it on faith" is really a good idea. someone who is familiar with the concept they are ushering should be accepted as true should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the idea. For instance, there are many faceless God concepts that are logically consistent, people demonstrate this and it's accepted that this hypothetical God is consistent. Then they continue to assume this hypothetical God concept is consistent and without prompting add attributes that were not previously mentioned. They go from a deistic God to a theistic God and claim logical consistency is still warranted (even when, imho, it's not). Now when people skip out the entire process of justifying this God concept as logically consistent and just say, "you don't know it's not, therefore it is," I already have alarm bells going off telling me that this person is full of it.

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:13 am

Filthy Tugboat wrote: For instance, there are many faceless God concepts that are logically consistent, people demonstrate this and it's accepted that this hypothetical God is consistent.

Please do give an example, show me that any God concept, or anything really, complies with every single law of logic.

Filthy Tugboat wrote: If someone rests an argument on this one thing and just says, "accept it on faith" should we just accept it?

The claim that something is logically possible doesn't have any content, it's simply an observation that a suggested concept doesn't contradict itself logically. This isn't really an advantage for a claim and has no bearing on the question whether we should accept something on faith or not.

To say that something isn't logically possible does have content and a huge bearing on the credibility of that claim.

thepandemicson · Post by **thepandemicson** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:33 am

Okay, so here's the question I'd like to offer up.
How do we define a god?

We've taken every conceivable definition of possibility, impossibility, probability, contingency, and many other words in between to determine a measure of existence. But we haven't defined the term of god yet, and why we believe it is possible, or impossible for such an entity to exist.

What constitutes deity status? And how do we define the logical possibility or impossibility of such a being?

Filthy Tugboat · Post by **Filthy Tugboat** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:09 am

instantc wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote: For instance, there are many faceless God concepts that are logically consistent, people demonstrate this and it's accepted that this hypothetical God is consistent.
Please do give an example, show me that any God concept, or anything really, complies with every single law of logic.

Well, Ok, Deists and pantheists (or a nice even mix) typically have it downpat, there is a being that constructed this universe(or the universe constructed itself). 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 and it does not violate the law of the excluded middle as the options are it either does exist or it doesn't, I am positing that it does. So, here we go, a logically consistent idea.

Filthy Tugboat wrote: If someone rests an argument on this one thing and just says, "accept it on faith" should we just accept it?
The claim that something is logically possible doesn't have any content, it's simply an observation that a suggested concept doesn't contradict itself logically. This isn't really an advantage for a claim and has no bearing on the question whether we should accept something on faith or not.

To say that something isn't logically possible does have content and a huge bearing on the credibility of that claim.

Indeed but because so many people leave out so much about their concepts when they make arguments about God one can't know whether they are logically inconsistent until later when someone has already proposed the cosmological argument and then starts babbling about Jesus being their savior and telling everyone else to "kneel"(not literally of course, figuratively(how?)).

olavisjo · Post by **olavisjo** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:33 am

.

scourge99 wrote: 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 Î¸ to make both these statements true?

y = sec² Î¸ - tan² Î¸ - x

y / x = 2 cos Î¸ sec Î¸ / 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 Î¸ that will satisfy both equations. Certain or certainly not there is no possible. Do or Do not there is no try.

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:02 am

Filthy Tugboat wrote: 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 such being don't violate the law of non-contradiction? So far you merely asserted it. Here are some other laws of logic, please show that the above being and all of its 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 do this or you'll have to admit that it is unreasonable demand to ask someone to demonstrate that his claim doesn't contradict any laws of logic (i.e. is logically possible).

A âŠƒ ( B âŠƒ A )

( A âŠƒ B ) âŠƒ ( ( A âŠƒ ( B âŠƒ C ) ) âŠƒ ( A âŠƒ C ) ) )

A âŠƒ ( B âŠƒ A & B )

( A âŠƒ C ) âŠƒ ( ( B âŠƒ C ) âŠƒ ( A âˆ¨ B âŠƒ C ) )

( A âŠƒ B ) âŠƒ ( ( A âŠƒ Â¬B ) âŠƒ Â¬A )

( A âŠƒ B ) âŠƒ ( ( B âŠƒ A ) âŠƒ ( A âˆ¼ B ) )

( A âŠƒ B ) âŠƒ ( ( B âŠƒ C ) âŠƒ ( A âŠƒ C ) )

( A âŠƒ B ) âŠƒ ( ( C âŠƒ A ) âŠƒ ( C âŠƒ B ) )

( A âŠƒ B ) âŠƒ ( ( A & C ) âŠƒ ( B & C ) )

( A âŠƒ B ) âŠƒ ( ( A âˆ¨ C ) âŠƒ ( B âˆ¨ C ) )

( A âŠƒ ( B âŠƒ C ) ) âˆ¼ ( B âŠƒ ( A âŠƒ C ) )

( A âŠƒ ( B âŠƒ C ) ) âˆ¼ ( A & B âŠƒ C )

Â¬A âŠƒ ( A âŠƒ B )

( ( A âˆ¼ B ) & ( B âˆ¼ C ) ) âŠƒ ( A âˆ¼ C )

( A âˆ¼ B ) âŠƒ ( A âŠƒ B )

( A âˆ¼ B ) âŠƒ ( B âŠƒ A )

( A âˆ¼ B ) âˆ¼ ( ( A âŠƒ B ) & ( B âŠƒ A ) )

( A âˆ¼ B ) âŠƒ ( ( A âˆ¼ C ) âˆ¼ ( B âˆ¼ C ) )

( A âˆ¼ B ) âŠƒ ( ( A âŠƒ C ) âˆ¼ ( B âŠƒ C ) )

( A âˆ¼ B ) âŠƒ ( ( C âŠƒ A ) âˆ¼ ( C âŠƒ B ) )

( A âˆ¼ B ) âŠƒ ( ( A & C ) âˆ¼ ( B & C ) )

( A âˆ¼ B ) âŠƒ ( ( A âˆ¨ C ) âˆ¼ ( B âˆ¨ C ) )

A âŠƒ ( ( A âˆ¼ B ) âˆ¼ B )

Â¬A âŠƒ ( ( A âˆ¼ B ) âˆ¼ Â¬B )

A âŠƒ ( ( A âŠƒ B ) âˆ¼ B )

A âŠƒ ( ( B âŠƒ A ) âˆ¼ A )

Â¬A âŠƒ ( ( A âŠƒ B ) âˆ¼ Â¬A )

Â¬A âŠƒ ( ( B âŠƒ A ) âˆ¼ Â¬B )

A âŠƒ ( ( A & B ) âˆ¼ B )

Â¬A âŠƒ ( ( A & B ) âˆ¼ A )

A âŠƒ ( ( A âˆ¨ B ) âˆ¼ A )

Â¬A âŠƒ ( ( A âˆ¨ B ) âˆ¼ B )

( A & A ) âˆ¼ A

( A & ( A âˆ¨ B ) ) âˆ¼ A

( A & ( A âŠƒ B ) ) âŠƒ B

( ( A âŠƒ B ) & ( A âŠƒ Â¬B ) ) âŠƒ Â¬A

Filthy Tugboat · Post by **Filthy Tugboat** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:05 am

instantc wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote: 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.

instantc wrote: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.

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:23 am

Filthy Tugboat wrote:
instantc wrote:
Filthy Tugboat wrote: 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?

Filthy Tugboat wrote:
instantc wrote: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.