Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/16/02 10:22am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "There is no "why," there is only Zeul" on 04/15/02 5:13pm
>>Ben, I have a request. In our discussions, I would
>>appreciate it if you elucidated on why you
>>think I am wrong on a set of reasoning, an evidental
>>argument etc. rather than just flat out saying, “you
>>are wrong on this issue,” without giving any
>>explanation for such a claim.
>
>When did I say you were wrong? What I said was that
>you didn't answer my question
Not answering your question is the very thing I'm disputing. I claimed that I did answer your question. You claim that I have not. What is the justification for your claim? I’ll provide justification for my claim in this post.
>>As I participate in
>>this forum, I would like to understand the other side
>>of the issues. But I can hardly do that if the other
>>sides do not offer any explanations for their claims
>>and positions.
>
>I think I have explained my side quite well.
>Apparently, you were hoping I'd try to break apart
>your logical proof, but I cannot and will not do that.
You asked why, God exists, and I gave a possible response: he exists because he necessarily exists. Why does he necessarily exist? I provided a formal proof that attempts to explain just that. If you think what I said was wrong but can’t find any reason to think that it’s wrong, then perhaps you should bow out. I will not lose any respect for you if you did that. I myself have bowed out a few times due to a profession of ignorance.
>As I explained in the last post, I think you can
>probably use formal logic to prove just about anything
>if you stick in the right symbols and meanings.
I find that to be a ridiculous claim without evidence. You can't use logic to prove just about anything any more than you can use science to prove just about anything.
>Furthermore, when I asked you to explain why God
>exists, I was not asking for an introduction to Logic
>101. I was asking you to explain _why_ God is there,
>which your logical proof cannot do.
That's precisely what it does though, provided you understand the premises and logical rules. Why does God exist? Because he necessarily exists. Why does he necessarily exist? That's what the proof was all about. If a proof is sound (i.e. the argument is valid and has true premises), it explains why a given statement follows from the premises. Or more specifically in this case, it gives the reasons for God’s existence. I admit I could be wrong, but if you don't think what I offered was a suitable explanation I'd like to know why.
>>Why think that I have lost anything in the argument?
>>What have I lost? The argument essentially does this:
>>take the bottom two premises,
>>
>>- If God (the greatest possible being) exists, then
>>he exists necessarily.
>> - It is possible for God to exist.
>>
>>And come to the conclusion:
>>
>>- Therefore, God exists.
>>
>>I suppose I could summarize a way of explaining why
>>the conclusion logically follows in words, but the
>>argument would not be proved valid. By using a formal
>>proof, I can prove that the argument is valid. That’s
>>why I used artificial language.
>
>The argument may be "valid," but that does not make it
>true.
Quite correct. It can only be sound if the premises are true. The argument is proved valid. But is it sound? It is if and only if the premises are true. The only reason it could be unsound or “not true” is if one of the two premises is wrong. Do you have logical reasons to doubt the premises? I'd honestly like to here them.
>I honestly don't care if God necessarily
>exists. I just want to know if he exists.
If God necessarily exists (i.e. exists in all possible worlds), then God exists (since we do in fact live in a possible world). That's a basic axiom of modal logic.
>You have
>shown that _if_ God exists, he exists necessarily.
>Fine. _If_ God doesn't exist, maybe he _doesn't_
>exist necessarily. It really doesn't matter to me.
I think you missed the point. The premise “If God exists, he exists necessarily” was only a part of the argument. Using this in conjunction with “God is possible” was what got to the conclusion of “God necessarily exists.”
>And please recall that I did not ask you to prove
>whether or not God existed. I asked you to tell me...
>_if_ God existed, _why_ he existed. And I don't mean
>"why" as in "Please list a logical proof." I mean
>"why" as it is generally accepted, which is, "Please
>explain the _reason_ for God's existence."
Well, that's what the purpose of the logical argument was!
>It is amusing what great lengths have to be taken to
>show that God might exist. And at the end, any
>rational person would have admitted that a creator
>_might_ exist in the first place. The question is
>whether his existence can be proven conclusively, and
>of course it cannot.
The conclusion was not “God might exists” it was “God necessarily exists.” You have claimed that God’s existence cannot be proven conclusively, but I have offered a counterexample that apparently disproves your claim. What is your response to that? Do you have any reason to continue holding your position (i.e. any reason to doubt the soundness of the formal proof)?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 