RE: There is no god or gods!
September 30, 2012 at 11:05 pm
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2012 at 12:04 am by spence96.)
So I agree that Dranu's topic is relevant. If you are asking for proof God exists, logical proof is proof. At the risk of repeating what has been said, I will try to give a fair analyses. There seems to be two arguments being given for God. The argument from definition and the argument from causation.
The argument from definition goes like this: God is infinite; an infinite thing can't possibly not exist; therefore, God cannot not exist; God exists. The problem is not that the definition of infinite, the problem is whether there is anything that corresponds to that definition. That is to say, verbally one cannot ascribe nonexistence to a "thing" which has already been ascribed existence. But this argument basically boils down to the familiar unicorn argument. If I say "It (unicorn) is not," some have said that I both say "the unicorn is" and "the unicorn isn't." That is the people are ambiguously using the word "is" both as a helping verb (a verb merely linking the predicate to the object) and as a verb connoting existence. Clearly I'm using the word "is" as the helping verb. I'm saying there is no such grouping of abstract properties as connoted by the word God when Dranu uses it.
The definition of God (to Dranu at least) really is "an infinite being", but, just like the unicorn, logical consistency of abstract properties does not ensure existence. I could define unicorn as a necessarily existing thing. But Dranu would think that was ridiculous. That's not his definition of unicorn. Well that's not our definition of god. But Dranu might say "oh well, most people agree with my definition." So as long as I got a bunch of people to agree that unicorns necessarily exist, they would?
Maybe I'm straw manning that argument. Maybe it's better to say that "infinite is infinite" so "infinite" must exist. Well that's the same problem. I have some idea of a thing, so my idea of the thing must correspond to reality. The universe may very well be finite. Admittedly it is hard for the human mind to imagine a universe with an end. Isn't there something on the other side of the "barrier." Well it used to be troublesome to imagine bodies acting on one another without touching: but now gravity is admitted by most everyone.
Moreover, even if some infinite were required, it need not be God. Space and time could be infinite. There also could be many infinite things, none of which are God. I know not how you make the jump from "this is infinite" to "therefore this infinite is God."
But then there is the argument from causation. Every contingent thing has a cause. Any chain of contingent causes must eventually have a necessary cause. Therefore, there is some necessary cause, and that it God. Again how do you make the jump from "this thing is necessary" to "this necessary thing is God?" More importantly, how do you get to pick and choose contingent things? Oh well the bed I'm lying on must be contingent. It didn't have to be manufactured. Well, no, if I have a mechanical view of the universe, it definitely did have to come to be.
But perhaps that's what you mean by "contingent": not that it might not have been, but it "came to be." But is it not possible for everything to come to be? Well because everything needs a cause. No not everything needs a cause. Spontaneous generation: term for not needing a cause. Just because we rarely see it (almost never), doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Theoretical scientist supposedly have seen particles come into existence inside a vacuum.
Let's work with the "might not have been" definition again. Let's say there was a 50% shot something might "be". Flip a coin, the universe came to be. Couldve missed it but we got lucky. There doesn't have to be some necessary thing. But I guess you had that argument that if you have an infinite chain of events, then we couldnt have gotten here. Well, this "bang theory" says there was no infinite chain. We sprang out of nothing and have experienced a finite amount of time: just the right amount of time for us to have got to the now. But also, even if there was an infinite chain, we could be here now. The "end" of an "infinite" chain can be arrived at given "infinite" time. Maybe there's an issue with this "infinite". It's like adding up ones forever. That doesn't get you an infinite, it just gives you an uber long time, that you can't really add up. Idk, but I feel like there's enough said, to show that these arguments don't work.
Dranu can reply. When I get time I'll address the reply. And maybe I'll have time to do some research for better refutations from Mill and Kant.
So this is Kant from Wikipedia.
Kant questioned the intelligibility of the concept of a necessary being. He considered examples of necessary propositions, such as "a triangle has three angles", and rejected the transfer of this logic to the existence of God. First, he argued that such necessary propositions are necessarily true only if such a being exists: If a triangle exists, it must have three angles. The necessary proposition, he argued, does not make the existence of a triangle necessary. Thus, he argued that, if the proposition "X exists" is posited, it would follow that, if X exists, it exists necessarily; this does not mean that X exists in reality.[49] Second, he argued that contradictions arise only when the subject and predicate are maintained and, therefore, a judgement of non-existence cannot be a contradiction, as it denies the predicate.[47]
Kant then proposed that the statement "God exists" must be analytic or synthetic—the predicate must be inside or outside of the subject, respectively. If the proposition is analytic, as the ontological argument takes it to be, then the statement would be true only because of the meaning given to the words. Kant claimed that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality. However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).[50]
Kant goes on to write, "'being' is obviously not a real predicate" [47] and cannot be part of the concept of something. He proposed that existence is not a predicate, or quality. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He stated that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, "I add no new predicate to the conception of God". He argued that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, then it is conceivable for a completely perfect being to not exist, thus defeating the ontological argument
Hume Wikipedia
...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.
I really can conceive God as not existing (even though Dranu thinks I cannot). There for nonexistence is not impossible. One might argue against a priori reasoning all together. The principle of noncontradiction doesn't prove that a thing cant both be and not be. It simply shows that "reasoning" normally assumes this to be true. Why does reasoning have to reflect reality? Why cant shroedinger's cat (spelling bad) be dead and alive? That's even farther than assuming that pure thought mandates God's existence while denying the empirical reality of that thought.
The argument from definition goes like this: God is infinite; an infinite thing can't possibly not exist; therefore, God cannot not exist; God exists. The problem is not that the definition of infinite, the problem is whether there is anything that corresponds to that definition. That is to say, verbally one cannot ascribe nonexistence to a "thing" which has already been ascribed existence. But this argument basically boils down to the familiar unicorn argument. If I say "It (unicorn) is not," some have said that I both say "the unicorn is" and "the unicorn isn't." That is the people are ambiguously using the word "is" both as a helping verb (a verb merely linking the predicate to the object) and as a verb connoting existence. Clearly I'm using the word "is" as the helping verb. I'm saying there is no such grouping of abstract properties as connoted by the word God when Dranu uses it.
The definition of God (to Dranu at least) really is "an infinite being", but, just like the unicorn, logical consistency of abstract properties does not ensure existence. I could define unicorn as a necessarily existing thing. But Dranu would think that was ridiculous. That's not his definition of unicorn. Well that's not our definition of god. But Dranu might say "oh well, most people agree with my definition." So as long as I got a bunch of people to agree that unicorns necessarily exist, they would?
Maybe I'm straw manning that argument. Maybe it's better to say that "infinite is infinite" so "infinite" must exist. Well that's the same problem. I have some idea of a thing, so my idea of the thing must correspond to reality. The universe may very well be finite. Admittedly it is hard for the human mind to imagine a universe with an end. Isn't there something on the other side of the "barrier." Well it used to be troublesome to imagine bodies acting on one another without touching: but now gravity is admitted by most everyone.
Moreover, even if some infinite were required, it need not be God. Space and time could be infinite. There also could be many infinite things, none of which are God. I know not how you make the jump from "this is infinite" to "therefore this infinite is God."
But then there is the argument from causation. Every contingent thing has a cause. Any chain of contingent causes must eventually have a necessary cause. Therefore, there is some necessary cause, and that it God. Again how do you make the jump from "this thing is necessary" to "this necessary thing is God?" More importantly, how do you get to pick and choose contingent things? Oh well the bed I'm lying on must be contingent. It didn't have to be manufactured. Well, no, if I have a mechanical view of the universe, it definitely did have to come to be.
But perhaps that's what you mean by "contingent": not that it might not have been, but it "came to be." But is it not possible for everything to come to be? Well because everything needs a cause. No not everything needs a cause. Spontaneous generation: term for not needing a cause. Just because we rarely see it (almost never), doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Theoretical scientist supposedly have seen particles come into existence inside a vacuum.
Let's work with the "might not have been" definition again. Let's say there was a 50% shot something might "be". Flip a coin, the universe came to be. Couldve missed it but we got lucky. There doesn't have to be some necessary thing. But I guess you had that argument that if you have an infinite chain of events, then we couldnt have gotten here. Well, this "bang theory" says there was no infinite chain. We sprang out of nothing and have experienced a finite amount of time: just the right amount of time for us to have got to the now. But also, even if there was an infinite chain, we could be here now. The "end" of an "infinite" chain can be arrived at given "infinite" time. Maybe there's an issue with this "infinite". It's like adding up ones forever. That doesn't get you an infinite, it just gives you an uber long time, that you can't really add up. Idk, but I feel like there's enough said, to show that these arguments don't work.
Dranu can reply. When I get time I'll address the reply. And maybe I'll have time to do some research for better refutations from Mill and Kant.
So this is Kant from Wikipedia.
Kant questioned the intelligibility of the concept of a necessary being. He considered examples of necessary propositions, such as "a triangle has three angles", and rejected the transfer of this logic to the existence of God. First, he argued that such necessary propositions are necessarily true only if such a being exists: If a triangle exists, it must have three angles. The necessary proposition, he argued, does not make the existence of a triangle necessary. Thus, he argued that, if the proposition "X exists" is posited, it would follow that, if X exists, it exists necessarily; this does not mean that X exists in reality.[49] Second, he argued that contradictions arise only when the subject and predicate are maintained and, therefore, a judgement of non-existence cannot be a contradiction, as it denies the predicate.[47]
Kant then proposed that the statement "God exists" must be analytic or synthetic—the predicate must be inside or outside of the subject, respectively. If the proposition is analytic, as the ontological argument takes it to be, then the statement would be true only because of the meaning given to the words. Kant claimed that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality. However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).[50]
Kant goes on to write, "'being' is obviously not a real predicate" [47] and cannot be part of the concept of something. He proposed that existence is not a predicate, or quality. This is because existence does not add to the essence of a being, but merely indicates its occurrence in reality. He stated that by taking the subject of God with all its predicates and then asserting that God exists, "I add no new predicate to the conception of God". He argued that the ontological argument works only if existence is a predicate; if this is not so, then it is conceivable for a completely perfect being to not exist, thus defeating the ontological argument
Hume Wikipedia
...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.
I really can conceive God as not existing (even though Dranu thinks I cannot). There for nonexistence is not impossible. One might argue against a priori reasoning all together. The principle of noncontradiction doesn't prove that a thing cant both be and not be. It simply shows that "reasoning" normally assumes this to be true. Why does reasoning have to reflect reality? Why cant shroedinger's cat (spelling bad) be dead and alive? That's even farther than assuming that pure thought mandates God's existence while denying the empirical reality of that thought.
