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?
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?
