Why all "Logical Proofs Of God" fail ...

[MitchBenn]

Having waded despairingly through that "Modal Logic" thread, I thought I'd post something I came up with about a year ago. I shouldn't imagine I'm the only person to have thought of this, but here goes anyway.

ALL "LOGICAL PROOFS OF GOD" FAIL:

A lot of apologists (deliberately?) confuse the concepts of "logic" and "reality". Reality is that which exists, regardless of who believes in it or not. Logic is a method of discerning and defining reality. Reality isn't contingent upon logic anymore than the existence of light is contingent upon the existence of eyeballs.

However, for logic to operate as a method for discerning reality, reality itself has to be constant. The law of non-contradiction has to apply (a thing is what it is, and is not what it's not).

In a materialist universe, this is PROBABLY the case. At least, there's no reason to suspect it ISN'T the case, and good enough grounds to assume that it IS the case to proceed on this assumption until we have cause to believe otherwise.

BUT

In a universe with a God, this is NOT the case. In a universe where the laws of reality are subject to the will and whim of an all-powerful entity, the law of non-contradiction does NOT apply. A thing is what it is and is not what it's not UNLESS GOD DECIDES OTHERWISE.

In a God-ruled universe, reality itself is fluid, inconstant. God can - and, according to scripture, DOES - alter the laws of reality to suit his own purposes (believers call such events "miracles").

So in a universe controlled by a God, logical constants don't apply, since reality itself is inconstant.

If you succeed in using logic to "prove" God exists, you succeed in proving that logic DOESN'T WORK. So your "proof" is based on nothing.

This applies to ALL "proofs of God" based on logic. You can have God, OR logic. Not both.

Thoughts?

[Tartarus Sauce]

This is why all omnipotent, intervening gods are by default logically invalid concepts. It is not, however, a rebuttal to creator gods that only act as the first cause, so it's technically not an invalidation of all gods, just the omnipotent, intervening ones.

[Lek]

God is not logical concept to human thinking. If miracles can be proved to exist, though, I think it wouls be logical to consider the possibility of God.

[MitchBenn]

God is not logical concept to human thinking. If miracles can be proved to exist, though, I think it wouls be logical to consider the possibility of God.

Go on then

[Lek]

God is not logical concept to human thinking. If miracles can be proved to exist, though, I think it wouls be logical to consider the possibility of God.

Go on then

I've heard a lot of testimony from reliable people attesting to miracles. I've never tried to scientifically prove them, but I believe them.

[MitchBenn]

Go on then

I've heard a lot of testimony from reliable people attesting to miracles. I've never tried to scientifically prove them, but I believe them.

Like what? And who?

[MindForgedManacle]

Yeah, Rational AKD isn't even right that the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle HAVE to apply. The law of the excluded middle is controversial (especially outside classical logic), and the law of non-contradiction is outright rejected by paraconsistent logical systems, as well as dialetheism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

And if I remember correctly, some logical systems treat even the law of identity as not necessarily true in some fashion (I'll try to find them again). So even if contradictions aren't conceivable, they aren't necessarily all metaphysical impossibilities (even if I think they are).

[Neo-Scholastic]

A lot of apologists (deliberately?) confuse the concepts of "logic" and "reality". Reality is that which exists, regardless of who believes in it or not. Logic is a method of discerning and defining reality.

Massive fail. Some nonbelievers confuse reality with the physical universe. If God is real, then by definition He is part of reality. If logic is indeed a method for gaining knowledge of reality, and if God is part of reality, then logic is a method for gaining knowledge of God.

[Esquilax]

Massive fail.

You would know.

Some nonbelievers confuse reality with the physical universe.

Until you can demonstrate that there's something more than that, pretty much.

If God is real, then by definition He is part of reality.

"If."

If logic is indeed a method for gaining knowledge of reality, and if God is part of reality, then logic is a method for gaining knowledge of God.

Except that logic needs to be confirmed by evidence: you can't think something into existence just by erecting logical premises. This is just sophistry.

[*Deidre*]

Having waded despairingly through that "Modal Logic" thread, I thought I'd post something I came up with about a year ago. I shouldn't imagine I'm the only person to have thought of this, but here goes anyway.

ALL "LOGICAL PROOFS OF GOD" FAIL:

A lot of apologists (deliberately?) confuse the concepts of "logic" and "reality". Reality is that which exists, regardless of who believes in it or not. Logic is a method of discerning and defining reality. Reality isn't contingent upon logic anymore than the existence of light is contingent upon the existence of eyeballs.

However, for logic to operate as a method for discerning reality, reality itself has to be constant. The law of non-contradiction has to apply (a thing is what it is, and is not what it's not).

In a materialist universe, this is PROBABLY the case. At least, there's no reason to suspect it ISN'T the case, and good enough grounds to assume that it IS the case to proceed on this assumption until we have cause to believe otherwise.

BUT

In a universe with a God, this is NOT the case. In a universe where the laws of reality are subject to the will and whim of an all-powerful entity, the law of non-contradiction does NOT apply. A thing is what it is and is not what it's not UNLESS GOD DECIDES OTHERWISE.

In a God-ruled universe, reality itself is fluid, inconstant. God can - and, according to scripture, DOES - alter the laws of reality to suit his own purposes (believers call such events "miracles").

So in a universe controlled by a God, logical constants don't apply, since reality itself is inconstant.

If you succeed in using logic to "prove" God exists, you succeed in proving that logic DOESN'T WORK. So your "proof" is based on nothing.

This applies to ALL "proofs of God" based on logic. You can have God, OR logic. Not both.

Thoughts?

My thought to it is that for a religious/spiritual person, their reality is based on their subjective view of life, stemming from their faith. When I was Christian, my worldview and/or "reality" was filtered through my faith, and my beliefs FIRST. I could and did dismiss reality if it conflicted with my subjective reality.

Now, my worldview is based on reality, truth that is objective, and absolute.

Religion and faith are built on subjective reality, otherwise there wouldn't be so many "competing" religions and views on God.

No two Christians can even agree in totality as to who or what God means to them, so stands to reason that the concept of a god comes from one's subjective view, and has nothing to so with objectivity or logic.

2+2=4 is an absolute truth.

The concept of a spirit world, isn't. For a religious person to present his/ her faith as objective truth, is foolish.