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

[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.

Let's look at this idea. What, exactly, IS a miracle? It is an important good-aligned event for which there is no available physical-determinist explanation.

So let's say somebody walks on water. Pretty cool, and based on our knowledge of how density and gravity work, impossible. Unless, that is, someone has high-tech Superstat3000™ water-walking boots on. The fact that these are not known to exist in human technology could mean that a) God exists; b) future humans time-traveled and gave somebody said boots; c) I'm not saying it was Aliens, but. . .

What if I see a burning bush, and it begins talking to me, telling me to take off my shoes and bow down before its Holy Might. Should I a) do it; b) start looking for stereo equipment, and report to the authorities the wanton destruction of a perfectly good bush; c) run to the nearest hospital, having been drugged or possibly even experiencing a stroke?

Forget about establishing a miracle. I'd like you to suggest ANY HYPOTHETICAL miracle that would make believing in God a logical necessity.

You're probably right. People would either say science can explain it or that science would eventually find an explanation.

[Angrboda]

That said, a self-evident premise of the OP is that reason serves as a means for gaining knowledge of reality. ... All experiences have two distinct features: a sensible object and a knowing subject. As such, by reasoning from experience someone can gain knowledge about a sensible object by observation and about himself as a knowing subject by introspection. For example, someone can know that water refracts light and he can know that he likes to swim. The general revelations found in nature come from the most basic types of experience, like knowing that things maintain their existence despite change (the Aristotle’s unmoved mover) or that each of the plurality of things owes its particular being to a universal ground of being (Aquinas’s 2nd Way). This rest on self-evidences like the reliablity of our senses, the validity of logic, and personal identity.

This speaks to the so-called lack of evidence touted by most atheists. The Christian God, in the person of the Father, is not just another being like any other being, but rather something that pervades all of reality. As such most Christian apologists don’t point to a unique or specific bit of reality as evidence of God. Instead the whole of nature is the evidence, evidence that is only recognized as evidence by applying reason to experience, as shown above.

[Rampant.A.I.]

The unmoved mover is an historically flawed argument, with a presupposed conclusion in the premise.

Please expand on your understanding of the objection. I believe the unmoved mover argument remains sound. I don’t know the specifics of the objection to which you are refer, but I do know that the objections of which I am aware are themselves flawed.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Unsupported assertion. No one has witnessed something completely new "beginning to exist" in our universe, such as the beginning of matter. All things are combinations of existing matter.


The Universe began to exist.

Unsupported, it is not known whether the universe began to exist, or how.

Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Even if a supported conclusion by the two premises, this shows precisely nothing. Ontological arguments are notorious for ramming in a "God is the only possible cause, therefore GodDidIt, TA-DAH!" At the conclusion. For this to be a valid conclusion, it's necessary <resuppose <God exists>, effectively placing the conclusion in the premises. It is essentially a circular argument with flawed premises.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's Kalam not Aquinas's 1st or 2nd way.

[MindForgedManacle]

I figured I'd give a semi-formal response to this.

We have VERY good reasons for doubting any sort of First Cause or Unmoved Mover style argument from modern cosmology (and yes, I'm aware those two arguments are not the same). To loosely quote theoretical cosmologist Sean Carroll - who I might add is well-versed in and very respectful of philosophy - from his excellent performance in his debate with William Lane Craig, according to modern physics "Any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian must necessarily be eternal", put formally put in the Quantum Eternity Theorem, with numerous cosmological models (including one by Carroll) in which the universe persists infinitely into the past and the future.


Now, on the philosophical side of things, my problem with all logical proofs of God's existence (in their myriad of styles) is that they ALL import some dangerously dubious premise or presupposition, often causing question-begging or some other fallacies or rejectable offense.

Let's take the ontological arguments. My criticism of it (here) admittedly relies on a group of concepts that are flawed and don't really work, but useful for my purposes here; basically, I'm invoking the analytic-synthetic distinction. Analytic claims are basically tautologies, i.e "all batchelors are unmarried"; basically, the truth of the statement is guaranteed because the description is contained in the concept itself. Synthetic judgements however aren't like that. An example would be "All batchelors are white men". The truth of the proposition is not within the concept itself, and hence can only be assessed by some other means, in this case empirically.
This pertains to ontological arguments because all of them (near as I can tell), in some fashion, import the ridiculous assumption that existence is a property of an object. But if we're going Kantian here (and really, it's going Humean to be exact, a lá bundle theory), "existence is not a predicate", it's not a property. You can't add existence to something, it either exists or it doesn't. If I imagine an apple,and then try to imagine it as an existing apple, have I actually changed ANYTHING in my imaging? No, because you cannot imagine the concept of existence itself as it's not a property. To have properties denotes existing already, not vice-versa. Hence why philosophers generally agree that existence claims are synthetic propositions so that the core assumption of ontological arguments is generally considered outright false.


So, essentially all attempts to prove God's existence fail in that sort of way (assuming something as if it were innocent and just running with it), and they ALL rely, essentially, on what you might call Aristotlean Metaphysics, which I don't think can work, although that's still an open question in the philosophical community. And as this pertains to ontological arguments (and any apologetic argument for God's existence) I ask you in particular Chad:


Why do you want a logical proof of God's existence in the first place? This is a metaphilosophical question, so we're talking about the methods and the stakes. What do you hope to gain by attempting to prove God's existence? It seems like such a strange thing to want and to me is the least philosophically interesting thing relevant to the philosophy of religion.

Unlike most of my fellow atheists and such, I actually DO think Christianity and other forms of theism are defensible, just not on these slippery metaphysical grounds.

[MindForgedManacle]

I sure can kill a conversation like no other. :{D

[bennyboy]

I sure can kill a conversation like no other. :{D

All that thinkin' 'n' sich makes it hard for people to respond with an easily-choosable cat meme. But now that you've given a one liner, I'm totes back in the game!

[Neo-Scholastic]

… put formally put in the Quantum Eternity Theorem, with numerous cosmological models (including one by Carroll) in which the universe persists infinitely into the past and the future.

Pardon my ignorance of advanced quantum physics, but I cannot imagine that to mean temporal persistence as long as big-bang cosmology holds to the idea that space-time itself came into being. Nevertheless, Aquinas’s 1st and 2nd way would still apply to an eternally existing physical universe, since they deal with the fact that things preserve their “whatness” even as they undergo change.

…ALL [ontological arguments] import some dangerously dubious premise or presupposition… all of them…import the ridiculous assumption that existence is a property of an object.

Don’t you think it is silly to have an apple before you and say it doesn’t exist?

The adjective “existing” does not add anything to the apple, because you already have tacit awareness of the apple’s existence, without stating it explicitly. With respect to sensible things, people know them as both substantive and particular. You are aware that the apple has a material component even as you are also aware that it is a particular thing, i.e. an apple, and not say a flower or a pint of beer. To my mind, it is obvious that every sensible thing must have both form and substance. Most people can identify these as distinct properties in thought (abstractly), even if they are never distinct in actuality. And since real things continue in their “whatness” as material things, even as they undergo change, it makes sense to look for principles that preserve and inform the many and varied things in sensible reality. As for now, I call these two principles primal matter and intentional agency. I do not know what to call this synthesis other than God.

…they ALL rely…on…Aristotlean Metaphysics, which I don't think can work, although that's still an open question in the philosophical community.

And I think it works, but then again, it’s an open question, yes?

…Why do you want a logical proof of God's existence in the first place?... we're talking about the methods and the stakes. What do you hope to gain by attempting to prove God's existence?

Unlike the neo-Scholastics, I do not start with ontological proofs, although I do accept them as a consequence of my own philosophical studies.

[*Deidre*]

I figured I'd give a semi-formal response to this.

We have VERY good reasons for doubting any sort of First Cause or Unmoved Mover style argument from modern cosmology (and yes, I'm aware those two arguments are not the same). To loosely quote theoretical cosmologist Sean Carroll - who I might add is well-versed in and very respectful of philosophy - from his excellent performance in his debate with William Lane Craig, according to modern physics "Any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian must necessarily be eternal", put formally put in the Quantum Eternity Theorem, with numerous cosmological models (including one by Carroll) in which the universe persists infinitely into the past and the future.


Now, on the philosophical side of things, my problem with all logical proofs of God's existence (in their myriad of styles) is that they ALL import some dangerously dubious premise or presupposition, often causing question-begging or some other fallacies or rejectable offense.

Let's take the ontological arguments. My criticism of it (here) admittedly relies on a group of concepts that are flawed and don't really work, but useful for my purposes here; basically, I'm invoking the analytic-synthetic distinction. Analytic claims are basically tautologies, i.e "all batchelors are unmarried"; basically, the truth of the statement is guaranteed because the description is contained in the concept itself. Synthetic judgements however aren't like that. An example would be "All batchelors are white men". The truth of the proposition is not within the concept itself, and hence can only be assessed by some other means, in this case empirically.
This pertains to ontological arguments because all of them (near as I can tell), in some fashion, import the ridiculous assumption that existence is a property of an object. But if we're going Kantian here (and really, it's going Humean to be exact, a lá bundle theory), "existence is not a predicate", it's not a property. You can't add existence to something, it either exists or it doesn't. If I imagine an apple,and then try to imagine it as an existing apple, have I actually changed ANYTHING in my imaging? No, because you cannot imagine the concept of existence itself as it's not a property. To have properties denotes existing already, not vice-versa. Hence why philosophers generally agree that existence claims are synthetic propositions so that the core assumption of ontological arguments is generally considered outright false.


So, essentially all attempts to prove God's existence fail in that sort of way (assuming something as if it were innocent and just running with it), and they ALL rely, essentially, on what you might call Aristotlean Metaphysics, which I don't think can work, although that's still an open question in the philosophical community. And as this pertains to ontological arguments (and any apologetic argument for God's existence) I ask you in particular Chad:


Why do you want a logical proof of God's existence in the first place? This is a metaphilosophical question, so we're talking about the methods and the stakes. What do you hope to gain by attempting to prove God's existence? It seems like such a strange thing to want and to me is the least philosophically interesting thing relevant to the philosophy of religion.


Unlike most of my fellow atheists and such, I actually DO think Christianity and other forms of theism are defensible, just not on these slippery metaphysical grounds.

I followed Christianity, most of my life. I'd say that after abandoning it, I can finally see why some atheists do wish to have proof before believing in the existence of 'a god.' I think from my perspective, that has a little to do with watching people (as I once did) worship and revolve their lives around a mere 'concept.' Around an intangible concept. It seems surreal to do so, yet so many religions have become wealthy off of getting people to not only worship, but fear an intangible concept.

Barring the whole 'God can be seen in the ocean, the stars, the universe, etc...' But, again, we are just imagining God as a concept. As an idea of what he might be, not what he IS. In our limited world view, we might each imagine God a bit differently, if we ponder it. In fact, most everyone does imagine him differently. No two Christians can even agree on certain Bible passages, so that leads me to think, he is a mere concept conjured up in human minds, nothing more. If he were evident, we would all agree on what/who he is/isn't.

Natural human curiosity asks...what IS God, should he exist.

[Rampant.A.I.]

… put formally put in the Quantum Eternity Theorem, with numerous cosmological models (including one by Carroll) in which the universe persists infinitely into the past and the future.

Pardon my ignorance of advanced quantum physics, but I cannot imagine that to mean temporal persistence as long as big-bang cosmology holds to the idea that space-time itself came into being. Nevertheless, Aquinas’s 1st and 2nd way would still apply to an eternally existing physical universe, since they deal with the fact that things preserve their “whatness” even as they undergo change.

…ALL [ontological arguments] import some dangerously dubious premise or presupposition… all of them…import the ridiculous assumption that existence is a property of an object.

Don’t you think it is silly to have an apple before you and say it doesn’t exist?

The adjective “existing” does not add anything to the apple, because you already have tacit awareness of the apple’s existence, without stating it explicitly. With respect to sensible things, people know them as both substantive and particular. You are aware that the apple has a material component even as you are also aware that it is a particular thing, i.e. an apple, and not say a flower or a pint of beer. To my mind, it is obvious that every sensible thing must have both form and substance. Most people can identify these as distinct properties in thought (abstractly), even if they are never distinct in actuality. And since real things continue in their “whatness” as material things, even as they undergo change, it makes sense to look for principles that preserve and inform the many and varied things in sensible reality. As for now, I call these two principles primal matter and intentional agency. I do not know what to call this synthesis other than God.

…they ALL rely…on…Aristotlean Metaphysics, which I don't think can work, although that's still an open question in the philosophical community.

And I think it works, but then again, it’s an open question, yes?

…Why do you want a logical proof of God's existence in the first place?... we're talking about the methods and the stakes. What do you hope to gain by attempting to prove God's existence?

Unlike the neo-Scholastics, I do not start with ontological proofs, although I do accept them as a consequence of my own philosophical studies.

I don't think any theoretical physicists are out there arguing space-time "came itself into being." Sounds rather messy.



Do you have real substantial proof of your "tacit awareness" (Jung's Oceanic Feeling) of God's existence, or are you content continuing the text version of the above image?