From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

[irichc]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Adora]

...unattainable Truth, which is God.

Er, why is it god?

[Farren]

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.

The absence of something is not the inverse of the thing, so non-truth is not a falsehood, it is the absence of truth. A false proposition is a proposition, whereas the absence of truth is not. Similarly the absence of false propositions does not imply truth. True propositions must be present in order for truth to be established.


2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.

If God is Truth, then the word truth can be inserted in the above argument and God disposed of, being a redundant term.

Furthermore truth implies only the veracity of a fact and nothing else. Even were we to accord God the status of being The Truth, we would be according him no other qualities. No colour, no emotional state, no creed, no will, no desire, no anything. To establish any other qualities, one would have to articulate specific truths and demonstrate why they qualify as true.

In any event absolute truth is a quality that cannot be determined by logic. Logic deals with logical consistency, which often labelled truth but does not have the same meaning as the word "truth" in the common tongue. IOW logic can only be used to establish the self-consistency of sets of propositions, not their accuracy in describing physical reality. You cannot logically show that a reported fact is, in fact true. You can only determine whether it is consistent with other facts also held to be true and choose which to keep and which to discard in order to arrive at a self-consistent thesis.

The common usage of the word truth refers to the enaction of of reality itself, rather than the reporting of it by human observers. When someone says "He crashed into me. It's true" they're not saying the words "He crashed into me" are the reality of the event, they're saying the words accurately represent the event. The truth is the event itself, what happened. Reality itself can contain no falsehoods, only the reporting thereof can.

Apart from the problem of defining truth as a seperate quality rather than simply the accurate reporting of reality, its simply not self-evident that truth's, or real events, must form a linked chain with an necessary end-points. Apart from the obvious possibility of infinite regression, there's also the possibility of closed loops, which is no less valid an assumption:

A->B
B->A

could be the whole truth, and nothing but the truth :D

So if "truth" above refers to the necessary reality of specific operation of physical laws, its perfectly possible that those laws either infinitely regress or "bootstrap", requiring no "ultimate" truth. Similarly if "truth" refers to the actual history of reality, it is perfectly concievable that it could infinitely regress or, if I understand Hawking correctly, bootstrap.



3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).
4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.
5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.


3,4,5 fall apart because God is a surplus term, is afforded no useful qualities by declaring him the ultimate truth and point (1) is patently wrong.

Greets, Daniel :)

[JoeP]

Poetic. But may I assume you are presenting this as an argument of logic?

1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.
I'm not sure it's clear what you mean by 'lead' here. In isolation, a single truth can't infer anything else. In combination, or taken with axioms or givens, truths could infer many others. But still may not infer anything else.

You introduce the idea of "truth's limit" which does not following from the first sentence. In fact it's contradictory. If truth's limit is a truth, then it must lead to another one.

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.
Continuing my point, if it's an infinite chain, it may have no limit ... as you say, unattainable, but not necessarily being a well-defined concept at all.

Your labelling this "God" is up to you, but muddies the argument, as that label is normally used in religious belief systems and you haven't established any link to its normal meaning.

3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).

4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.

5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.
The logic here is fine, but the antecedents are not even clearly meaningful let alone true. Since your only definition of God is "the limit of truth" and you (incorrectly) asserted that this exists in (2), of course you have a contradiction in also asserting that it doesn't.

So, instead of treating this as an argument in logic, may I treat it as an artistic expression of a mental experience? In which case it starts off beautifully (I think 3, 4, and 5 don't fit in so well).

Welcome to freethought-forum!

joe

[Goliath]

1) Every truth leads to another one.


What do you mean by "leads to"? (Copyright 2004, JoeP. All rights reserved. :P)



Otherwise, truth's limit



How do you take a limit of truth? What are you talking about? Do you even know what a limit is (in the context of sequences in a metric space or functions of a real variable)?



in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end.



What do you mean by the "beginning" and the "end" of truth?




In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.



How are the relations "proceed to" and "generate" defined? And what do you mean by truths here? Do you mean propositions (since that's what you were talking about above)?



2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.



First of all, how can a truth guide? Secondly, what the hell is meant by an "infinite enchainment"? (sounds kinky :groucho: ). Finally, what do you mean by "supreme and unattainable Truth"? Why do you capitalize the "T" in truth?



3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).



Here you go bouncing back to talking about propositions again....I take it you're wrongly interchanging "truth" and "proposition" here?

Again, what do you mean by a limit of propositions? You must be defining some metric on the collection of propositions....how does it work? What do you mean by an "infinite progression of truths"?



5) However, if God exists...



As you have not proven this assertion, your argument fails.


Now, this "argument" of yours might've worked on your village atheist buddies whom you managed to convert. However it won't fly here. If you think you can get away with the use mathematical terms without having the slightest clue as to what they mean around a professional Mathematician, then you've got another thing coming.

[JoeP]

What do you mean by "leads to"?
Hey, hands off, that's my objection!


Secondly, what the hell is meant by an "infinite enchainment"? (sounds kinky :groucho: ).
But you've got something there. :popcorn:

If you think you can get away with the use mathematical terms without having the slightest clue as to what they mean around a professional Mathematician, then you've got another thing coming.
There, my lord, I'm still thy scholar.

[Scotty]

Which god was that again?

Or was that just "a" god?

-Scott

[Ronin]

2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.


An unattainable Truth is as unnecessary as an attainable Falsehood.

<I expect to see this added to the random quote generator immediamente> :shakefist:

[Goliath]

Hey, hands off, that's my objection!

Oops! I've fixed that. :D

There, my lord, I'm still thy scholar.

Oh come now...."my lord"?

Try "Our omniscient Dark Lord and Master". :homage: :D

[beyelzu]

How do you take a limit of truth? What are you talking about? Do you even know what a limit is (in the context of sequences in a metric space or functions of a real variable)?

the limit of the truth as the truth approaches zero is when a xian apologist opens his mouth.

because zero truth is surely approaching :D


seriously, this argument seems familiar, I seem to recall a poster similar to this at ii.

long post metaphysical sounding non proofs of god. also english as a second language (lack of idioms and odd word choice)

[JoeP]

There, my lord, I'm still thy scholar.

Oh come now...."my lord"?

Try "Our omniscient Dark Lord and Master". :homage: :D
It's a quote. I wasn't going to distort it just to please you ... :bow2:

[JoeP]

Was this a drive-by posting? No responses from irichc. Last Activity: Yesterday 10:51 AM (about the same as original post, in my timezone).

[Scotty]

It was a free thought, so it didn't require any change.

-Scott

[JoeP]

Fair point.

[Clutch Munny]

in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end.



What do you mean by the "beginning" and the "end" of truth?





And "find"?

Hi Daniel,

I really haven't the slightest clue what any of the premises are supposed to say, and certainly not how they are supposed to entail any conclusion, still less the one you extract from them.

So far as honest self-reflection reveals, this is not because I'm trying not to understand. It just looks like word-salad to me.

If you have a good argument in mind, you did not succeed in writing it down. I'm not trying to be mean -- just letting you know that, if your intention was to give an argument that would seem reasonable, or even intelligible, you have fallen far short of these aims. Back to the drawing board?

[irichc]

Proving 1).

Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.

We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.

So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.


Proving 2).

I.

In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.

If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that “the truth is the truth”, since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.

II.

1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.

1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.

1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.

1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.

1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

1.2.2. If it has not a first Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.


The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.

Cheers.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

[Ronin]

<snip>

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is the perpetual universe. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

Cheers!

:quaff:

www.guinness.com

[dave_a]

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

Ok, I get what you are saying. The thing is your are conflaguramatizing truth with god. Capitalizing the 'T' in Truth doesn't make truth either god or God.

If truth were god then 1+1=2 is god.

If you wish me to accept that 1+1=2=god I can do that. Where I would go from there I have no idea.

Is the idea that I should bow down before math majors?

[wade-w]

Proving 1).

Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.

We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.

So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.


There are so many things wrong with this I'm not even sure where to begin. I suggest you take a look at some texts on analysis and abstract algebra.

[Shake]

Well, I could almost accept that part of it, but just because it holds in mathematics, doesn't mean it translates to the real world.

Also could bring up the point about formal systems being incomplete ...

[Goliath]

Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations.


Wrong. Arithmetic as you seem to be using it here consists of the basic calculations done on the natural numbers, which are based on the Peano postulates. (Of course, the idea of arithmetical operations goes far beyond the natural numbers.)



We know that "1" links to "2",



What do you mean by "links to"?



and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.



Yes, yes, the integers form a cyclic group under addition. What of it?



So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2"), all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected.



:eyebrow2: Infinitely many operations? I count four: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (and really, there are only two, since x-y is really x+(-y) where -y is the additive inverse of y, and simiarly with division).



Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth,



You still have not defined what you mean by an "enchainment of truths", and it still sounds kinda kinky. :D



In an infinite succession of eternal truths



What do you mean by a "succession of truths"?



the last truth, that at the same time is the first one,



:eyebrow2: "last" truth? "first" truth? Under what ordering?



guarantees the coherence between all of them.



I see nothing coherent in anything that you've said.



If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth,



:? What are you talking about?


“the truth is the truth”.


"The truth", whatever that is, is "the truth", by definition.



NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one,



What do you mean by a "primordial truth"? How do you know that there is one truth that presupposes every other truth? You must prove its existence.



1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.



True.



1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.



What do you mean by "limited by"?



1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.



So a god is a truth that "limits" (whatever the fuck that means) other truths? What does this "god" have to do with your xian god?



1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth,



Explain what this means.



the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too,



Maybe we could know if you could explain what your proposition means.



1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.



First under what ordering?! What is it with you xians and your uses of undefined orderings?



The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.



Are you shitting me? Everything in your rambling posts on this thread needs an explanation!

Look, you might've been able to fool your church groupies with this horrible abuse of mathematical terminology, but your bullshit won't fly here. As a professional mathematician, I take great personal offense at your abuse of mathematical terms without knowing what they mean, and what seems to be your contempt for the art of mathematics in general.

Frankly, I see you as no better than a scheming, conniving con artist, trying to pepper up your bigoted god-talk with some mathematical terms and hoping that the audience won't notice your deception. But you can't fool me, and I will call your bullshit out each and every single time you spew it out here.

[Goliath]

Is the idea that I should bow down before math majors?

Hmmmm...maybe irichc isn't so batshit crazy after all...?

:D

:homage:

[godfry n. glad]

Okay, Goliath, I agree with every question you've posed and would like to see the responses.

Footnote, though. I think this: ...your xian god...

is an unwarrented assumption upon your part. I may have missed it, but I don't remember christ being mentioned. Theism, yes...but I had not yet learned the particular flavor of this theist. Perhaps he'll clear that up for us. So far, he seems to assert that truth is god (only with capitals) and god is truth. Insupportable assumptions. Ineffiable entities. Woo-woo.

My advice to irichc: "Never start a land war in Asia."

godfry

(we need a smilie with a sign that says: <- pbref)

[Goliath]

Okay, Goliath, I agree with every question you've posed and would like to see the responses.

:yikes:

:D



Footnote, though. I think this: ...your xian god...

is an unwarrented assumption upon your part.



Well, I actually asked that question tangentially....even if he's coherent and his argument is valid, so what? It isn't important to the shooting down of his "arguments", and can be ignored. Sorry for not being more clear about the mention of his xian god being tangential (and from what I can recall from the IIDB, I think he's a xian...I guess he can correct me if I'm wrong).

[dave_a]

Okay, Goliath, I agree with every question you've posed and would like to see the responses.

Footnote, though. I think this: ...your xian god...

is an unwarrented assumption upon your part. I may have missed it, but I don't remember christ being mentioned. Theism, yes...but I had not yet learned the particular flavor of this theist. Perhaps he'll clear that up for us. So far, he seems to assert that truth is god (only with capitals) and god is truth. Insupportable assumptions. Ineffiable entities. Woo-woo.


Granted, no specific deity has been named, but this business of capitalizing words that aren't normally capitalized (Truth) smacks of xianity.

Just as the 'under God' in our pledge clearly smacks of xianity.

Christians have a way of capitalizing words that just don't warrant capitalization. God, for example, doesn't warrant capitalization unless God is a proper name. Nevermind that the xian god's name is not God, they view the word God as being the name of their god (idiots) even though their bible (which they also usually capitalize as Bible) gives the name of their god as Jehovah or Jesus depending on your preference.

Religionists who can't avoid capitializing truth as Truth are almost certainly xian. Christian mystics, one could even say christian pagans, but still steeped in the christian tradition nonetheless.

Nobody else has the issue of unwarranted capitalization the OP has demonstrated.

And for the record I am glad we actually have someone here who understands mathematics to deal with this mystical pseudo math mumbo jumbo. I mean really, 1+1=2=god is just too stupid for most of us to deal with. We need a real mathmetician who enjoys dealing with boring, trivial shit to help us out :D

I don't think Goliath's assumption is unwarranted at all. There are clues.

[JoeP]

What is it with you xians and your uses of undefined orderings?

That's a quotable question. :appl:
I take great personal offense ... I will call your bullshit out each and every single time you spew it out here.
Good for you, and I support you in calling bs on this kind of stuff.

But I caution you not to be personally offended, for your own sanity! This guy is never going to understand or engage you at your level, or any level of sense. Earlier I called his writing poetry (in the sense of evoking something but not adhering to anything rational). Instead I'd like to see this as like a child's drawing. The best response is "that's nice dear", with a pat on the head, rather than "you must colour inside the lines, cows aren't blue, you can't have a person bigger than a house" etc.

I suppose the danger is that people who could see sense might be taken in by this fantasy. It's those people that free-thinking people need to get to.

joe

[godfry n. glad]

Granted, no specific deity has been named, but this business of capitalizing words that aren't normally capitalized (Truth) smacks of xianity.

Just as the 'under God' in our pledge clearly smacks of xianity.

Or Judaism, where it would probably be rendered as "G-d".

Christians have a way of capitalizing words that just don't warrant capitalization. God, for example, doesn't warrant capitalization unless God is a proper name. Nevermind that the xian god's name is not God, they view the word God as being the name of their god (idiots) even though their bible (which they also usually capitalize as Bible) gives the name of their god as Jehovah or Jesus depending on your preference.

Or Yahweh, or YHWH. I've not met too many that actually use the term Jehovah. It's just variant pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, the cryptic four letter name of the god of the Israelites....which is not supposed to be pronounced at all in that tradition.

Religionists who can't avoid capitializing truth as Truth are almost certainly xian. Christian mystics, one could even say christian pagans, but still steeped in the christian tradition nonetheless.

Nobody else has the issue of unwarranted capitalization the OP has demonstrated.

Well, that's not my experience. I've found that a lot of the "mystical new-agers" use this approach as well. Some consider themselves christians, others do not.

And for the record I am glad we actually have someone here who understands mathematics to deal with this mystical pseudo math mumbo jumbo. I mean really, 1+1=2=god is just too stupid for most of us to deal with. We need a real mathmetician who enjoys dealing with boring, trivial shit to help us out :D

I'll second that. I also appreciate wade-w's presence here for the same reason. Hence my reference to a land war in Asia.

And, for the record, I use "Wholly Babble" as the title of that collection of tales the Judeo-Christian types wave in everybody's face. I think of it as much more accurately descriptive. Do you think I should cease capitalizing it? It is a book title, after all. :wink:

godfry n. glad