From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

I

irichc

Registered Member
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
 
And for an encore he goes on to prove that black = white and is killed on the next zebra crossing. From the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Every truth leads to another one.
Click to expand...
Why? This is a baseless assertion. What is your proof? Sorry I don’t read Spanish.

Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth,
Click to expand...
Nonsense. If a truth doesn’t lead to another truth then it can simply lead nowhere, a dead end. That is quite different to a falsehood.

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.
Click to expand...
Invalid since the original premise is invalid.

Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily – a chain of truths leads to greater truth none of which in practical history have led anywhere near to the concept of a god being a truth.

By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1);
Click to expand...
Something got lost in translation I suspect. Gibberish.

we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).
Click to expand...
Or based on the same reasoning – lead to recognizing God’s non-existence.

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.
Click to expand...
Just like black=white, and left=right, and north=south.

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.
Click to expand...
Riiight!! Dream on.

Kat
 
A jesuit I once knew explained that as god was omnipotent, god need not do anything so mundane as actually exist.
 
Irichc : with truth must also come proof, otherwise truth cease's to be truth and becomes theory, assumption, Inaccuracy and even doubt.
 
Well, that depends.
From all we know, the gods people today pray to could be unexistent.
But still those gods have great power, gained through their followers.
The power of their religion could be seen as the power of the gods.
But it would be logical that an omnipotent god does exist. Otherwise his
omnipotence is useless. If he does not exist he cannot act, as a result he
cannot be omnipotent.
 
do u belive in a God, Gods, or no God !
P.S. Good point on your last post, didnt see it that way.
 
irichc said:
Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.
Click to expand...
the truth is everyone is born atheist, ;)
how does that lead to god?

did you come to conclusion theres gods out there somewhere on your own,or did someone put this idea in your head?
 
one thing and a rigorous proof and all that.

truth leads to another truth. even in the most liberal interpretation of that as in via proof all truths lead to another truth is false. See Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Essentially, he proved that out of truths via proof you can arise at contradictions. Not all truths can be proved, and not all falsehoods can be disproved.
 
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.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm
 
irichc said:
1) Every truth leads to another one... [whew] ...So, in any case, God exists.
Click to expand...
So... if truth exists, God (defined as the ultimate Truth) exists. Truth must exist (as demonstrated), therefore God exists. If I got it right, I think so too.:)

Otherwise I'm as lost as the rest obviously are. Regardless, it is fun seeing some bona fide atheists trying to pick this apart; fun and funny (the ridiculous objections).:D
 
What if we replaced God in that utterly baffling and meaningless rhetoric, with 'non existence'?
 
irichc,

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

You equal God with truth. Why?
 
You equal God with truth. Why?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was thinking last knight when I read his post. However his post about god being truth sounds much like the first cause argument.

Truth is a word that can be altered in many ways, Truth does not necessarily mean honesty, it's based on opinions.

Thus his opinion is that god is ultimate truth, but if that's the case and he regressed thus far, why stop at god? Thus god requires another truth, another god that created it, and so on ad infinitum!.

Godless.
 
mouse said:
You equal God with truth. Why?
Click to expand...
That, I agree, is the most pertinent question with regards to this thread. Why would a theist equate God with truth?

What Daniel did was illustrate that if there is truth (and there has to be) then there must be an ultimate truth which needs no proving. Like, say, existence; You exist; prove it.;)

God as defined by the theist would either be Truth (the ultimate) or be even greater than truth itself and be the source of it (since God is[would be] the source of all that is). What "truth" is must be what is actual and not necessarily what us humans say it is.

"Gravity exists." Is that a truth? I think it's an uncertainty (although the seasoned/religious physicist might disagree and call me a heretic). Gravity is an observed effect of what actually is and we define that effect. Would it be there if we didn't define it? I liken it to the centripital force that keeps things moving in a circle (it has many actual causes but all keeps the things moving in a circle). What if we just ignored/didn't notice the fact that different phenomena keep things moving in a cirlce (say a circle wasn't defined)? Would there be anything called a centripital force? I doubt it.

Either way, the existence of truth points to the existence of an ultimate Truth (as opposed to infinte truths) or source of truth which fits God's bill quite well.
 
Godless said:
Thus his opinion is that god is ultimate truth, but if that's the case and he regressed thus far, why stop at god? Thus god requires another truth, another god that created it, and so on ad infinitum!
Click to expand...
I think that's the prcoess he dismissed (or attempted to[?]) in Proving 2 above.;) He illustrated (or tried to[?]) the fact that there must be an ultimate truth (uncaused and independent).
 
Truth: is the product of recognition (i.e., identification) of facts of reality. Man identifies and intergrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions--and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of his definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or the falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics. Ayn Rand.

Italics my imput. to emphasise my point. Thus his ultimate truth may also be rationalizations to arrive at ultimate (truth) being a god, however he lacks "facts" evidnecence and also emperical proof that god is ultimate truth. Existence exists that's an axiom, no one can dispute that existence does not exist, in order to say such an absurdity, one would have to claim it from non-existence. What "definition" can we give god? god is a word with no identity, an entity with no identity is non existent.

Godless.
 
Q25 said:
the truth is everyone is born atheist, ;)
how does that lead to god?

did you come to conclusion theres gods out there somewhere on your own,or did someone put this idea in your head?
Click to expand...
We don't know if we are born with an idea of God or not. We know however that we have a area in the brain devoted to it though. So, yes, maybe someone put this idea in our heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top