An Argument FOR the Existence of God (or at least Agnosticism)

In the past, I have argued against the existence of God in the following way:

(1) There is no evidence a posteriori for the existence of God.

(2) No entity should be postulated that cannot be empirically verified.

Therefore, (3) God does not exist.

But I've recently discovered a rather obvious problem with this, specifically, that there are abstract entities that can be postulated on a priori grounds (e.g. numbers). I don't want to get into a discussion about the ontological status of numbers right now, but we can do so later if anyone would like. Bottom line is, any attempt to determine the ontological status of numbers a posteriori leads inevitably to psychologism (see J.S. Mill's Logic).

Now, of course there have been many attempts in the past to prove the existence of God a priori, all of which have failed. The ontological argument immediately comes to mind. Kant, quite successfully I think, disproved these arguments once and for all. But Kant was far from an atheist.

I will now offer an a priori argument for the existence of God or agnosticism at the very least:

(1) Goldbach's Conjecture (that every even integer greater that two is the sum of two primes) has not (cannot?) been proven.

(2) But Goldbach's Conjecture could be true.

(3) If Goldbach's Conjecture is true, then it is true a priori.

So, (4) there is no reason to doubt Goldbach's Conjecture.

(5) God's existence has not been proven.

(6) But God could exist.

(7) If God exists, then his existence can be known a priori.

Therefore, (8) there is no reason to doubt the existence of God.

Needs to be cleaned up a bit. I don't think it's strictly valid, although I haven't worked out exactly why yet. It is also a little reminiscent of the ontological argument because of the modal verbs, but they may be eliminable. Anyway, not bad for a first formulation. Let me know what you think.

 

Shouldn't that be worded differently?

There is reason to doubt the non-existence of God...

 

No, the conclusion reads correctly, but I'm growing more and more dissatisfied with the way the argument is formulated. So, I'm going to try it informally, in the hope that I can get it right later on. It basically goes like this: There are a lot of things, which, if they are true, then they are true a priori. Anything in arithmetic, for example. Some of these things, such as Goldbach's Conjecture, have not yet (and perhaps cannot be at all) been proven. But Goldbach's Conjecture seems so obviously to be the case. Just run through some set of even numbers in your head.


It's not unreasonable to assume that God is an entity like numbers or propositions. After all, if he exists, he's certainly not an entity like this keyboard I'm typing on. So, if God exists, then his existence can be known a priori. (The analogy with Goldbach's Conjecture holds only if we assume a strong tie between the grammars of truth and existence, but this shouldn't seem so strange for anyone familiar with the early work of Dummett.) Now, every hitherto conceived, a priori argument for God's existence has been flawed. But, as with the failed proofs of Goldbach's Conjecture, this does not mean that God does not exist. In fact, it may even be the case that no proof can be constructed. But, as with Goldbach's Conjecture, it might be absurd to suspend belief on the matter.

That's about it, very informally.

 

i really believe there are far more interesting, useful and pertinent questions the whether, how many, or what kinds, of gods there might be.

like what WE do, with the kind of world we all have to live in.
and the real natural mechanisms by which we do so.

the nontangable, cool friend/friends to have. almost certainly exist. but mostly so what. maybe it/they CAN intervene in what we experience, but i for one, don't observe a whole lot of their doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Agree

Occam

 

Let me get this straight because it confused me a little. You use to be atheist then realized that you can neither prove the existence of god nor disprove. So the you became agnostic. If this is correct then i agree with you. Here is my point of view on the matter. I've been trying to be as agnostic toward everthing that i think would cost me to much to loose if false. Like god for example. I choose not to have faith in "god' because if god doesn't exist i would have wasted all of my life praying to something thats not even there. I think that if there happens to be a god that he wouldn't want use to waste all of are lives thinking him for our existence and kissing his shoes I'm assuming that if there is a god then he has some what of a general human like personality. Since it even says in the bible that he created us in his image. Now say you are god. Would you send me to hell if i didn't believe in you even though i had no trail leading to my existence? Why would god be a little spoiled bitch child and send me to hell to burn for all eternity just because i didn't believe in him. WTF! And another thing. Why can god supposedly only talk to preists and not everyone? I've yet to here any type of logical answer to this. I could go on all day with other things.

The point is that religion has no bases of logic in the belief of god/gods. Either you are illogical toward this subject and choose faith, or you are logical and choose Agnosticism. I'm saying that agnosticism is the only logical aproach toward religion because its the definition of the principles of reasoning, or logic. Let me give you an example. Would you consider bigfoot to exist? Well there is no direct evidence leading to bigfoots existence, but it could be real. If you say that it doesn't exist would you not have to have evident proof of this to have made a logical decision?

It's either logic, or blind faith on the subject of religion you choose.

Now in some cases faith is ok when it want cost you anything. Let me give an example. Say my brother tells me he just bought a new car. I'm going to have faith that he isn't leing to me because it will not cost me anything if he really doesn't have a car. I'll just be disapointed.

Does anyone else agree with this, and if not then why not?

 

Not exactly. As of a few days ago (when I first came up with the argument), I don't know what I am. It depends on whether the argument is valid or not. Also, the argument seems to work as evidence for God's existence, not merely agnosticism.

If Goldbach's Conjecture is true, then it is true a priori. But Goldbach's Conjecture has not been proven. It may even be the case that Goldbach's Conjecture cannot be proven. But it would seem unreasonable to suspend belief in the case of Goldbach's Conjecture. It works for every known prime number. God is not an entity in concreto. If God exists and is not in concreto, then he must exist in abstractum, like numbers, propositions, truth-values, etc. So, if God exists, then his existence can be known a priori, even if it can't be proved, like Goldbach's Conjecture. (Presupposing that link between truth and existence that I mentioned earlier.) So, while you could take the weaker conclusion for agnosticism, that it is unreasonable to suspend belief concerning Goldbach's Conjecture might make it reasonable to take the stronger conclusion for theism.

Look, the argument doesn't demonstrate what God wants, whether there's a heaven or a hell, or if God only talks to priests. It's just an argument for his existence. Anything further would go beyond the capability of philosophy.

Well, there's certainly no appeal to faith in my argument, is there?

First of all, you're doing what most people do and using the word "logic" far too loosely. There is nothing, strictly speaking, illogical about that inference. Unreasonable, yes; illogical, no.

Now, as I said in my first post, this is the sort of argument I used to appeal to to argue against the existence of God. Why you think this only demonstrates agnosticism, I don't know, because bigfoot does not exist. Anyway, the point I'm making now is that God may be an entity in abstractum and so knowable only a priori. Now that I think about it, I can't believe that I didn't consider it before. I mean, no theist believes that we'll be able to see God with a very powerful telescope, if only we'd look in the right place. If God exists, then he exists outside space and time and so in abstractum, like numbers.

 

I'm saying that the belief, or disbelief in anything without evidence is illogical, or irrational. Not just god.

And about the bigfoot thing. I'm not saying he does or doesn't exist. I'm just saying that there is no proof either way. How could you be so sure as to just say that bigfoot doesn't exist. I agree it's a pretty far fetched theory but anything could be possible, or exist for all you know.

 

I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. I know that this is the Agnosticism and Atheism forum so I'll butt out if you want me to. I just wanted to give you a Christian perspective on the matter for consideration.

The Bible claims to be God's Word and communicates to us who God is and what He is like. The Bible is His revelation to us, His creation. If this is true, it is false that God has not revealed Himself to us and that we are left in the dark about who He is. God speaks to all of us through His Word, the Bible, but whether we listen or not is a different story.

The Bible says that all human beings are sinful, all of us do evil. People who are guilty of crimes are punished. You will only be punished if you are guilty. The punishment for moral crimes is Hell. God is a just, perfect God and won't turn a blind eye towards evil. He will punish all wrong doing because He is just.

However, God has made a way for our moral crimes to be forgiven, a way for us to experience pardon. He sent His Son Jesus Christ, God in human flesh, to take our punishment. He is our sacrifice. He was our substitute. Only Jesus Christ has died for our moral crimes, taking our punishment. Sin cannot dwell in the presence of God and Jesus Christ is the only way for us to be pardoned and restored to a right relationship with our Creator.

It is your choice whether you want to experience pardon or not, whether you want a relationship with God, your Creator, or whether you want nothing to do with Him.

 

So what you're saying is that God doesn't punish perpetrators of "moral crimes" if the guilty are part of his gang. He will only punish those guilty of the exact same "moral crime" if they aren't part of his gang. You might want to reevaluate the "Just God" theory.

 

JLP

SO...please list SPECIFICALLY
The crimes u speak of.
Do they include..'sex out of wedlock?
Thats not gods' business.
Do they include 'being a homosexual'
Thats not gods' business.
Do they include logical rejecton of the bulk of christian law?
Thats not gods' business
Do they include the ABSOLUTE rejection of the concept of hell?
Thats not gods' business.

U see..none of the above have a victim.. none are hurt.
none complain. There IS NO MORAL ISSUE

Then why does your small minded little god have any say in what
freethinking people wish to do?

Because 'IT IS WRITTEN'? ....LOL....GROW UP LAD.
Stop trying to be smarter and wiser by weilding a silly book.
Cause u and occam both know thats what you are doing.

Occam

 

Desert Nightmare:

I understand that, but you're still using the word "illogical" improperly. It's just a semantic issue. So, you can keep using the word that way if you like. But it could get confusing later on if you want to say that something is "illogical" that is actually contrary to the rules of inference. It's usually a good idea to be very clear and careful in choosing your words in philosophy.

Yes, it's possible that bigfoot exists because I can conceive of bigfoot existing. But that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't exist and that we're all justified in believing that he doesn't exist. Knowledge doesn't have to be incorrigible. But this is beside the point. If God exists, then he is not a concrete entity, like bigfoot would be, if he existed. That's why it is only appropriate to argue for the existence of God a priori. So, is my argument clearer to you now, or should I explain it a bit more? What do you think of the argument?

JLPMGHRS:

If you haven't been driven off yet, I'd like to hear a theist's perspective on the argument. Keep in mind it's not an argument for Christianity or the inerrancy of the bible or the existence of heaven, hell, or Jesus. So, your last post had little to do with the topic at hand (but hey, neither have most of the others). But that's not to say that I don't want you to stick around and talk about it. So, hope to hear from you soon.

 

Hello Common Sense,

In my last post I was giving a response to something specific that someone had posted.

I'm no logician but I don't know if #4 follows from the rest, though I very well could be wrong. I also think #6 is problematic because you have to have someone willing to say that God might exist, which sounds reasonable, but some people a firm in their belief that God cannot exist, no matter what.

Which makes a great point, one that many people don't think about. All reason is faith based. That is, we all start with certain assumptions, certain premises that we believe to be true, that we hold by faith and use those as the basis of our reasoning.

Logic(numbers) is an inescapable concept. You can't capture it and measure it. Logic itself is not a natural object in the universe, nor is morality.

 

My mistake, then.

Yeah, I'm not really pleased with the way the formal argument worked out. It's not valid, but that doesn't mean it can't be convincing. It's certainly odd that I say that no proof of God's existence is possible in the middle of what is purported to be a proof of God's existence, although I don't think it's outright contradictory. Calling it a "proof" might be a little strong. But it certainly gets you thinking. Anyway, I think that (4) is fairly strong, since it just seems unreasonable to me to doubt Goldbach's Conjecture. I mean, it just works in so many cases that to suspend belief on the mattter would be unreasonable (though not illogical).

Now, you might have a real point there. I have never, even as an atheist, doubted the logical possibility of the existence of God. Some site the "rock that's too heavy to lift" paradox or the problem of evil as proof of the impossibility of God. But the definition can always be tweaked to overcome these problems. Whether this is ad hoc or not is another matter.

Yes and no. No, in that logic is only concerned with possible states of affairs and so doesn't claim to be true of actuality. Logic says, if given such-and-such premises, then so-and-so would be the case. Yes, in that logic is transcendental. So that working backwards from intuitive judgements, we can determine the rules of inference. In other words, the semantics of logic determines the syntax. Of course, I call this "intuition," not "faith." I think there's a difference, although I'm having trouble pinning down exactly what it is. Others may disagree. In either case, logic remains the same.

I'm not sure what you mean by "You can't capture it and measure it," but I very much agree with everything else. I think you're right that morality falls into the same category, and this tells us something very important about ethics, namely, that it's an a priori science, exactly like logic. This does not rule out utilitarianism prima facie, but, if arithmetic is reducible logic, as you seem to grant, then we can conclude that logic, arithmetic, and ethics are analytic a priori. That would rule out utilitarianism, since it is based on the external relation of cause and effect, (the pleasure or pain caused by some action). If ethics is analytic a priori, then that science must be concerned solely with internal properties, like logic or arithmetic. Now, like I said, I didn't want to get too concerned with the ontological status of numbers, but I secretly knew that it was bound to come up. Oh well.

 

When it comes to philosohpy, I'm amatuer at best. I was formly a devout (Christian) theist, and very recently have become agnostic. But my intuition has always been that concrete objective proof of the existence of God (ie in consenual reality) is impossible. Christians claim that one can find subjective proof, an internal reality, but it can never be more.

As a Christian trying to "logically" integrate this information. I determined that if God exists, all those subjective proofs of his existence.. i.e. healing, answer to prayers must occur in some precise logical metaphysical system (similar to what we observe as physical laws, gravity et al) such that their entrence in the objective world is not possible, or at least not observable.

-----------------------------

Though this is not totally related, but my choice of agnosticism is based off my own scientific reasoning. (It assumes our understanding of consenual reality to be truely objective, and this 'proof' surely wouldn't hold up to philosophical inquery. And please forgive it's extremely informal nature.) It's similar to Kant's 'proof' of god that there had to be an unmoved mover. It basically goes like this:

1. All things impossible are equally impossible, and equally possible in the sense that they cannot occur.

2. The existence or non-existence of God are both equally impossible. Letting God be defined as the entity with the ability to cause the origin of the physical universe, and without the presence of such an entity this universe would require that it has always existed. Resulting to two possible cases (A) A universe with origin (i.e. created by this entity) (B) A universe without origin

A Since it is impossible to prove that there is a God, his entity by physical observation is impossible.

B A universe without origin, by definition has already existed for an infinite amount of time. During this time, I assume the laws of finite energy, and increasing entropy as observed must have also always existed. So this universe existing without origin and having been around for an infinite amount of time should have reached the highest possible level of entropy, and we should all be a giant crystal or cloud of dust. This obviously hasn't happened, the only way for this to not have happened is that energy must not be finite. Which as we observe in our universe is not possible. Thus a universe without origin is also impossible.

3. Conclusion, your left to choose from believing in an infinite God whose entity is responsible for this universe's origin, or anonymous infinite energy that keeps this universe from reaching the highest possible entropy. Either way it seems that any cosmology is impossible, our existence is impossible, but we do exist, so one of these impossible propositions must be true, making them both equally possible.

Please criticize.

 

Common Sense,

Yes, logic itself is true from the beginning. We can't get away from it, it's part of us, as is morality. I think that #2 and #6 in your post are the real issue. We do all reason from certain assumptions held by faith and it all depends on if someone is willing to admit these premises are true. The validity I'm not sure about.

But a scientist assumes that nature is uniform in order to perform experiments. This is not proven by science, it doesn't account for it.

 

Ok, this is where I believe that you go off of the tracks: Goldbach’s Conjecture can be tested, and, every time it has been tested, it has been proven true, i.e., there is no known counter-example. I find that a very strong reason to believe something as true or true-as-far-as-we-know.

God’s existence can’t be tested. There’s a very real chance that it can’t be tested because it simply doesn’t exist. The amount of calorics causing a 1000° temperature can’t be measured because heat is caused by motion and not calorics. Calorics don’t exist.

In 5, 6, and 7, you could just as easily add in any non-observable, non-measurable entity like Sheeno, the evil god of 10th grade Biology, or Buto, the benevolent god of celery. Only time and language limits the number of entities you could plug in there.


I won’t comment on the nature of numbers or the concept of a priori itself, since it would be an unconstructive derail.

I’m glad to see you posting again. You’re might favorite poster, and you make me think and rethink. I'm going to revisit one of our old discussions since I believe you may have been right and myself wrong. I like being a dead thread bumper.

 

That's actually a very good point. (But I don't know anything about calorics.) A demonstration is not a proof, but that doesn't seem to matter for your argument. But I might be able to tweek the argument to use, instead of Goldbach's Conjecture, something like the proposition, "There are an infinite number of digits in pi," which certainly appears to be the case because pi is a transcendental number, even though we can't actually construct pi. (Obviously, since we can't write down an infinite series of numebrs; not even a computer can do it.) Anyway, I just read your post. So, I'm going to have to think about it.

Yes, those unobservables will do, but not just any unobservable will do the trick. Round squares, "that 5 + 7 = 13," married bachelors, etc. won't work, since they'll violate (6) "that x could exist."

Thank. It's good to be back. I was gone because I started to notice some very odd consequences with my philosophy, and I decided it needed rethinking (and quick, as in before the start of the semester.) I ended up flip-flopping on a number of significant matters. Then I thought, "Well what about God?" which was when the idea of the possibility of God as an abstract object hit me. Then I thought, "Hey, why not test things out at hipforums." So, here I am.

Anyway, I don't know if I'm going to end up a full-blown theist. Right now agnosticism seems just as likely an option. I'm certainly not going to become a Christian or start subscribing to any other faith, for that matter. But I really don't think I can go back to atheism. Roughly, there are three philosophers responsible for my "conversion," at least on this matter: Kant, Bolzano, and (early) Wittgenstein. Definitely worth reading if you've got a lot of spare time.

 

iTPAU

Your fundamantal preconception/error here is that u consider the
'observable universe'..to be the totallity of reality.
When there is NO verification or precendent known to human thought
or observation to base such an assumption.

Or do propose a 5 year old villige child who has never seen beyond
the near hills of his home. Is speaking fact when he says 'the world
is as far as i can see, there is nothing beyond those hills'.
In relation to reality we, humanity, are even less in vision.
.than that child.

Occam thinks it more likely that our 'observable universe' is in analogy
no more than a 2mm high accreted mineral plume in the depths of
the sea of the totallity of reality.
And that totallity is very likely to be infinite in duration.
For...can energy be destroyed.?
No..but it can be dissipated.
What if the totallity has inherent laws with little relation to
our 'description' of entropy?
What if it has 100% effecient recycling?
In that once our 'plume' runs down..the energy being dissipated
into space or collapsed into smbh's. it is recycled back into the
totallity to be used again.

Occam

 

Occam,

Thanks, I had a sneaking suspicion it would not hold up to any scrutiny. Though, I can vouch for it's effectiveness as a parlor trick among christian zealots in the bible belt.

Do you, or anyone, have any reading suggestions for a total newb on Athiesm/Agnosticism.