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 (vid. 3), 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.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by 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 (vid. 3), 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.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

The logic assumes God exists from the beginning. Nothing new. The Kalam arguement and Craig make similar claims. Number 4 is False. If God does not exist, God does not exist. If God exists, God exists.

Recognizing an infinite progression of truths in the past and the future does not prove God exists. The atheist may simply respond that the ultimate truth is simply the nature of the infinite existence with no God.

The Kalam arguement and Craig assumed a starting point, ie, BIG BANG, thus the Universe was finite and there must be an infinite God a creator. This logic infact works if you consider all physical existence has a starting point, but this assumption breaks down if the scientists assume that existence is infinite in the past and future and no starting point or end. There may be an infinite number of universes where each universe is finite with a beginning and an end, like ours.

By the way I believe in God, but I do not believe in selfish circular arguements that assume the result in the beginning.

[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 frist 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.

[Pooeypants]

Is this the Ontological argument?

[Milton Bradley]

Arithmetic was made up out of thin air to "describe" what man could already wittness, ans observe.


To assume that math is ultimately true is an enormous leap of faith, which is exactly why most people who don't buy into religion, don't buy into religion.


Looks like somebody is trying to pull the wool over my eyes, again.

This line of reasoning is quite silly, really not worthy of much discussion. I guess Aristotelean (sp) logic is too much for some folks.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Pooeypants, Is this the Ontological argument?

Its a nonsense logic shell game with the assumption that God exists in the beginning.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by 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 frist 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.

Further explanations would not help.

[Ralph38449]

I don't get how 1=2 yet I do know that inf. to the 0 power does not = 1. Math should not be used here.

A truth does not have to make a truth. What is said to one person can be changed to make a nontruth. A nontruth can also have a truthful background. For example I tell someone that Joe goes to Wal-Mart, but really he goes to the Piggly Wiggly. Understand? He still goes to a store.

Or a true false test. If you had to make a test you might find that Noah brought two of every creature on the ark. Well you might make the question say that Moses brought two of every animal on the ark.

Your theory is flawed in the rules of the world.

[Sonart]

Well, personally, I believe in Zeno's Paradox with God. See, in order to get close to God, you first have to get half the distance there. Then you have to cover half that distance. And then half of that distance. And half of that distance.

So in the end, you can never actually reach God.

[Robin]

This argument has two flaws.
1) Even if it were airtight, it doesn't mean anything. The existence of a god doesn't mean anything in itsself. You're just elaborating on abstract concepts to prove something which doesn't really mean anything.
2) Every truth doesn't necessarily lead to another one. Most people who have minimal knowledge of math would accept "there are an infinite number of primes" as true. That truth doesn't really lead to another truth, anything can lead up to another statement but that statement isn't necessarily meaningful. Also you assume that all truths are linked, there are truths about self, truths about math, truths about philosophy, truths about science etc, these truths are necessarily linked.

The ultimate flaw in this theory is that it pressuposes that we can know the truth, I don't think we can be completely certain about the truth. The truth is just a tool we use, we suppose something is true, then we derive other truths from it, and presumably that helps us in some way. Of course, it's completely possible that our begining truth is wrong, it has happened to many people, it's not really worth putting so much faith into any one truth unless you get something out of it.

[Ralph38449]

Even if you did get half the distance, imgine that you were running in the woods, you get half way now you have nowhere to go but out.