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

In many ways very true.
Sigh.. how depressing

Occam

 

Sorry again, been busy.

Perhaps, but the Tractatus is cryptic, and Wittgenstein was a Christian.

Bingo. I figured that out and that's why I eventually came to reject the argument. I still thought it was a good effort, though. But you're still missing one premise. Let's hold on to this analogy between math and God for just a little while longer. Of course, the propositions of mathematics are true and could not be otherwise. So, what about the sentence "God exists"? I think you can see where I'm going with this now. "Existence is not a predicate," Kant said, meaning that it has no semantic content. So, it seems to me that the sentence isn't even well-formed. Am I wrong?

 

No you are right since that is merely a proposition too
I can see where you are going with it but to be fully honest it has been a long time since I did any "meaty" logic so dont get too technical with the existential quantifier and all the x's and y's just yet - Its been over a decade since I last did any hard logic
Take it nice and easy and I'm SURE - CERTAIN me and you can have a good conversation. I would love to examine this more with you but as a investigation not just a battle of will, is that ok?
So my point here is that yes I can see what you're saying Existence is not a predicate means that it stands for itself - er needs no introduction so to speak - self evident,
"god does not exist"! holds the same weight as "god exists" unless there is a god that has the attribute of existing in the unpredicated world - or merely within the confines of a logical construct using the existential quantifier, where for the sake of argument god does exist.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/existenceisnotapredicate.html

but we are not heading toward a belief that one can infer the existence of god from other justified beliefs are we ?

 

Common Sense,

Interesting. As a theist, I'll offer my input (and you'll have to forgive my impreciseness =) )

My thinking here is that this is a rule and that any connection between this premise and the conclusion only shows the ontological status of the conclusion in relation to a rule, not numbers. That may be important, or that may not be (or I may be completely wrong, I don't know) but it didn't seem to be your original intent.

According to Henry Pogorzelski it is =)

I'm not sure that this follows.

This bring up an important question. What does "proven" mean?

It seems to me that now we would have to define God, I mean just what is it that could exist? There are many conceptions of God, and I think that the only kind of God that this argument would allow for is one that has the same ontological status as Goldbach's Conjecture!

I don't think this follows either. Maybe if it read "If God exist in the same fashion as Goldbach's Conjecture, and if Goldbach's Conjecture can be known a prior, then God can be known a priori." Also, with premise (3) it is stated that if Goldbach's Conjecture is true then it is true a prior, while this premise states (on the bases of (3)? ) God existence can be known a prior if he exist. Does this make a difference?

Heh...seems cleaver, though I suppose it only follows if (4) does.

I take your argument in following way (again this is by no means meant to be precise):

1. Certain rules which cannot(?) be proven would nevertheless be true a prior if they are true
2. If God exist in the same fashion as these rules then his existence cannot(?) be proven, nevertheless his existence can be known a prior.

I don't think that theist usually argue on these grounds (but I'm probably just thinking of Christian theist here), but it is interesting. Given to same content, a theist may argue:

1. A given rule has infinite content (infinite amount of numbers, perhaps)
2. The rule is a concept and cannot "exist" apart from a mind
3. The human mind cannot hold infinite content
4. Therefore the rule must "exist" in an infinite mind.

EDIT: the thrust here is obviously that abstract entities are somhow otologically dependent on God.

Obviously this argument has problems, but thats how a theist may argue on the same grounds that you are. Anyway hope my input helps,

Late.

 

Good post, I think you’re on to a lot of the flawed reasoning behind the argument. Because so many of the arguments key ingredients can have so many meanings, someone should clearly define more than just God. Priori is a fuzzy word that I never use but I think means something you know (or accept) to be true without any direct proof.

Sure God is a priori if anything to most people, if you could prove God, then it would be a fact and not a priori.

I could be totally off course here but from what I can tell, the whole argument can be simplified down to trying to prove a priori (which is a hypothetical conception you believe true) with a conjecture (which is unproven speculation). Two “unproofs” do not equal proof!

 

Thanks! You do realize that you're complementing a Christian theist right?

I suppose though this is hardly fun! I think the history of philosophy can, on one level, be seen as the history of defining and re-defining terms =)

It usually means something like "independent of experience" thus an a prior proof is a proof that can be known independent of experience--not dependant on experience.

I do believe this first part is correct, though only because I'm a Calvinist

You may be correct here, but I think the point of his argument was precisely that the conjecture could not be proven, yet there was no reason to doubt that it was true. Replace the conjecture with God and you see the main thrust of his argument.

 

Quite the opposite - the status of a priori knowledge is that - you encounter the terms of proof prior to encountering the object of proof - that an object is defined by its attributes
so how do you know triangles exist ?
they are defined before the fact (a priori) as being "any closed 3 sided object" amongst other definitions, so - you need not see a triangle to know what a triangle is. when you see a 3 sided object - you can say "hey a triangle", because we agreed that a triangle is any closed three sided object. So I reasoned out - this three sided object is a triangle because its a three sided object
you can see the logic of it here
x is y if x and y = z
"this shape" (x) is "a triangle" (y) if x and y are "3 sided" (z)
the opposite is: if x not = z and y = z then x not = y, x is not a triangle.
So to test if we have a triangle all you do is say (if x=z and y=z then x=y)

suppose you say triangles dont exist - well you cant say that because
not finding a triangle isnt the same as saying it doesnt exist - the proof they do exist is that you found one in the real world - but the status of the knowledge "triangles are three sided" is secure whether you find one or not-
so what is a priori knowledge
well, because you already can define x in terms of x's attributes - you will know what you are looking at when you see it. Reason alone will tell you what it is.

We cannot know by reason alone what god is though - we need to know the extents of god - all that the word implies
That is the basis of scientific classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29

further to that - we cannot know apriori whether someone will die on a certain day. reason alone will not tell you when Queen Elizabeth 2nd will reign until
We cannot reason the existence of god since there is nothing from which to base a reasoned account of god - point in case - god will only allow christians into heaven ! muslims disagree - and yet they also say there is only one god !!!! THE VERY SAME GOD !!!!!!!
You may argue that it doesnt prove god does not exist and that is true - but it also proves we cannot infer god from reason alone

There may be a possible world where god is defined differently so again we cannot infer the apriori status of god since there is no account that remains true for all possible worlds
and the statement "god is the sole creator of the universe" only remains true if there is only one god and he is the creator of the universe - but why should we pit muslim, christian, hindu and jew against each other? After all - they would know the best definition of god according to them, but not only are their accounts contradictory but self contradictory

response to Jatom

Not really - philosophy isnt simply a semantic excersise.

You presume too much :0)

 

That was meant partially as a joke btw

 

I was only joking too

 

I do not feel that disproving nonexistence proves existence. It is a twisted logic that is forced to operate independently of space and time, thereby making it irrelevant and insignificant.

I do not believe in god. If you do...good for you, end of story. At the bottom of it all, religion is not required to interfere with human interaction in any way, shape or form, yet so many make it an issue. You are what you are. If you're not a total pretentious pontificating piece of shit about it, I'll like you...If you wanna blow your shit up on a bus in Isreal...chances are I'm gonna thing you were stupid and deserved to die.

Have you ever noticed that not all religious people are dumb...but most dumb people are religious...I think that's the real issue here.

 

huh? whats that about?

 

I LOVE this, is this part of someones quote? If so, whos, and if not, may I use it in my sig? LOL

 

Einstien believed in god.

As potentially the smartest human who ever lived...
lets not start calling people dumb.

Occam

 

LTTB

"I do not feel that disproving nonexistence proves existence."
[of 'a' god/gods]
Of course it does not. your prove either one or the other....
No human logic can prove nonexistance
One can logically show nonexistance to be indeterminate
The same for existance at this time.
And that
Proves atheism cannot be shown logically to be true.
And as existance cannot also be shown to be true.
Then taking an atheist or theist position is an act of desire.

Theism and atheism cannot logically be shown to be true.
Thus the indeterminate state of agnosticism is the only logical state.
Occam has said this 500 times... yet still the bullyboy schoolyard
theists/athiests gang up to try and destroy such a position... why

cowardice, inabillity to think of things harder than cheese burgers and fries.

On other forums have had atheists and theists working together to destroy the ....middle ground.
Why.. cause 'fence sitting' is seen as a weekness. Admit it...be honnest.
the middle ground
'i dont know'
is seen as weakness.

Ok...
If occam went back to 20ad and said to jesus.
what is a "fission fusion fission reaction"
or "DNA Polymerase a"

He would not know.
So jesus is a weak ass nobody.
Wont lie to sound worldly.

Smart man
The first step to wisdom is knowing you know nothing.

Occam

 

That was a very thorough and lengthy definition but I wouldn’t say mine was “quite the opposite”

Priori still sounds to me like a dangerous way of finding proof from indirect measures because people have flaws. Most people believe the fact that life on earth is enough proof for the existence of God.

You tell me you’re looking at something with 3 sides and I’ll say OK, that’s a triangle, but what if your perception was off and you missed a detail, maybe you were looking at a tetrahedron. Our limited and skewed view of this universe could lead to the same mistakes.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote? Albert believing in god did not make him dumb. However, go to Po-Dunk TN, where all the High School's money gets put into their football program while their geography books still show the USSR...I'm willing to be an incredibly high per centage of them believe in the hereafter.

Again, not all people who believe in god are dumb, but most dumb people believe in god. It's not their fault...they've not been taught to question it.

 

That's all me baby, and fee free to use it as you please.

 

the term is "a priori" and you still dont get it - its such a simple idea and you'll slap yourself on the forehead and glue yourself to the fridge when you see it.
Theres no arguing about it really because its a fact much like we see 5+5=10 is a fact, once we know how the logic of adding integers works
you cannot reason that you live for 100 years exactly because you dont know when you will die - but you can reason what half of 10 is without having to count 10 light bulbs or ten of anything in the real world - you can think of ten without experience beyond thinking

the term apriori denotes that which can be known without having to see anything in the real world.
If I tell you a magnet does not stick to non-ferous metal you now know apriori what I mean by the term ferrous or non-ferrous metal
how - well we just defined it - all things ferrous allow magnets to stick to something - now go test it and put a magnet against different kinds of metal and each one it sticks to is ferrous
now if there are two heaps of metal and you tell me that one heap is ferrous and the other isnt - I can reason that magnets will stick to one heap but not the other - how? well we just defined non-ferrous in terms of whether a magnet sticks to them or not - whether you are lying or not about the two heaps is independent of the definition
I can test whether the two heaps are as you say - simply by trying to stick a magnet on them
ferrous metals need not exist but we can use our definition to see if they do
and non-ferrous metals need not exist but we can also test that theory

look my magnet sticks to this, and this, and this, they are ferrous
I havent found any non ferrous metals but that doesnt mean they dont exist - I just havent found any

So now you see how the test of ferrousness is known independent of experience - apriori I know that if a magnet doesnt stick , its a non ferrous object, given all other conditions are true such that ferrous = magnets stick to it
Ok heres one
mulko is anything that has "mergin" written on it
x an object
y has mergin written on it
z mulko
an object (x) has mergin written(y) on it therefore it is mulko(z)
I just found a reglabingo with mergin written on it - therefore ?
you now have apriori knowledge that anything you find in the real world with mergin written on it - WE will classify it as mulko

ha ha ha
this post is mulko it has mergin written on it

 

I do not disagree at all.
My position of athiesm does not require that you be an athiest.



It is a decision I have come to in my 29 years on this planet through a lot of reflection and inquiry. I studied the bible pretty hard core for a while. After I graduated from the Conservatory, I even toyed with the idea of the seminary, but I could not reconcile my position. I would have been a total fraud as a man of the cloth, however, I still love the music and pay my respects to Palestrina, Monteverdi, Bach, de Lassus, Desprez, DeMacheaut, Ockeghem and many others on a weekly basis.

Sit on the fence...where else can you have such a clear view of both sides.

 

And 49 years gives me this

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Mosty often.. very true

Occam