A New Proof for the Existence of God

[Skeptic92]

Nice work, I like it!

I especially like: If logic isn’t thought, then what is it?

Logic is a rational tool which we use to render reality intelligible to us, revealing to us the intrinsic intelligibility of the material world.

There is an argument from intelligibility; this, however, can’t be called a form of it. The conclusion seems to leave us with a form of panpsychism or solipsism, not God.

 

[jochoa]

Logic is a rational tool which we use to render reality intelligible to us, revealing to us the intrinsic intelligibility of the material world.

There is an argument from intelligibility; this, however, can’t be called a form of it. The conclusion seems to leave us with a form of panpsychism or solipsism, not God.

When I read his proof, I perceive connections between logic and Logos, Logos as the Thought of God, a universal application to any individual, and a law in the heart of every one.

Also, I perceive a rational tool to be a tool of thought.

 

[Skeptic92]

When I read his proof, I perceive connections between logic and Logos, Logos as the Thought of God, a universal application to any individual, and a law in the heart of every one.

Also, I perceive a rational tool to be a tool of thought.

Yeah, but you haven’t there demonstrated an identity. It hasn’t been demonstrated that Logic IS thought; especially as a thought can express something illogical. The fact they can be separated implies a real distinction between thought and logic.

I also posted this expansion, which reveals a fundamental problem in the premises, earlier in the thread:

1: Logic exists everywhere in the universe (Premise)
2: Logic exists only in thought (premise)
3: Therefore the universe exists only in thought (from 1+2)
4; thought only comes from a mind
5:Therefore the universe exists only in a mind (from 3+4)

The problem with this is that it implies heavily that either a form of panpsychism, idealism, or solipsism is true. All 3 of which suffer from serious difficulties and throw question as to the reliability of our rational and sensory faculties. An interesting version of the Argument from Intelligibility can be found at the end of Bernard Lonergans “Insight”. The book is, however, very long and quite hard going. Although it does provide a nice valid Argument from Intelligibility that I have heard is sound; I haven’t had the chance to study it yet.

As to my solution to the above argument; I’d deny the first premise, as I am unsure that it is actually meaningful. It seems to be confusing logic as a tool used by a rational agent, and intelligible relations that are a mark of Beings intelligibility. Further to this I would then deny the second premise, as intelligibility does not only exist in thought. Intelligible relations are uncovered, & apprehended by rational thought; but the being is intrinsically intelligible in itself. We do not create intelligibility; we recognise it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here’s a new proof I’d like to share:

1. Logic exists everywhere in the universe.
2. Logic is thought.
3. Thought only comes from a mind.
   Therefore, a mind created the universe.

I’m going to reconstruct your syllogism as I think you mean it to play out.

A logical being must be produced by a Being with a mind.
The universe is a logical being.
The universe must be produced by a Being with a mind.

The major premise is doubtful. It assumes a fact not in evidence. According to evolutionists, the universe could have been mindlessly produced.

The minor premise is also doubtful, as we cannot ascertain that every aspect of nature exists according to the rules of human logic. Indeed, there are some aspects of nature that defy human logic.

The conclusion, while it is deductively valid, is not necessarily true because the major and minor premises are not necessarily true.

 

[Tomdstone]

Here’s a new proof I’d like to share:

1. Logic exists everywhere in the universe.
2. Logic is thought.
3. Thought only comes from a mind.
   Therefore, a mind created the universe.

Premise #2 could use some explanation, so I’ll add the following:
Logic, in its various forms (including mathematics) has been something we discover, not something invented by man. It is not matter or energy. It does not require any dimensions in order to exist, and can exist outside the universe. What else is left for it to be, except thought?

Would there be logic in the universe if there were not a mind? There are patterns of regularity in the universe, and these patterns would be there regardless of whether or not there were someone around to see them. They have been there, waiting for people to discover them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Would there be logic in the universe if there were not a mind? There are patterns of regularity in the universe, and these patterns would be there regardless of whether or not there were someone around to see them. They have been there, waiting for people to discover them.

Logic and patterns of regularity are not identical. We could not have logic without patterns of regularity, but we could have patterns of regularity (according to atheists) without a logical mind constructing them.

Einstein got around this by assuming that the Universe has a mind that controls the laws.

His God was the god of the Deists, or if you will, Pantheists like Spinoza.

Einstein did not like to be called an atheist, and he let the atheists know it on several occasions. He also let the Christians and Jews know he did not like the biblical God.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” Albert Einstein

 

[Tomdstone]

Here’s a new proof I’d like to share:

1. Logic exists everywhere in the universe.
2. Logic is thought.
3. Thought only comes from a mind.
   Therefore, a mind created the universe.

Is the mind purely material or is it necessarily a spiritual object? A man (Phineas Gage 1848) was a very cheerful, helpful and well liked boss before he had an accident at a railroad in which a small piece of metal had pierced his skull and blew out a small portion of his brain. He recovered completely, but after that incident, his personality changed drastically and he became a tyrant, always arguing with his workers and being constantly angry and unpleasant. His soul, being spiritual, did not change, did it? But only his material brain had been affected. But this induced a complete transformation in his mental outlook. So, was his mind something that was directly related to what was happening in his brain and not in his soul?
Also, Catholic theologians say that animals will not go to heaven as they do not have an immortal soul. But anyone who has owned a dog or cat will tell you that they have a mind of some sort. So if animals do not have a soul, and they are purely material, but they have a mind, then would that not imply that the mind is material. So if the conclusion is that a mind has created the universe, and if the mind were the product of purely material activity, then that would not prove the existence of an omnipotent Spiritual Being.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I am not sure that logic exists everywhere in the universe. Take for example, a baby born suffering with some fatal disease. Or those children in Palestine killed by Israeli strikes. Where is the logic in that?

Why is somebody dying or suffering illogical? Are we not just a collection of atoms, a particular expression of energy that eventually disperses according to your world view? You would have to believe in the objective value of humanity to even begin to think of suffering as being some how illogical or logical. As soon as you admit to an objective standard of value, and not just your preference for pizza without the olives, you have to admit to the existence of God and assume that God has logical reasons for allowing suffering to exist.

I fail to see the objective standard underlying your rebuttal.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Here’s a new proof I’d like to share:

1. Logic exists everywhere in the universe.
2. Logic is thought.
3. Thought only comes from a mind.
   Therefore, a mind created the universe.

Premise #2 could use some explanation, so I’ll add the following:
Logic, in its various forms (including mathematics) has been something we discover, not something invented by man. It is not matter or energy. It does not require any dimensions in order to exist, and can exist outside the universe. What else is left for it to be, except thought?

1. It is true that there are certain abstract truths that have no physical object (a triangle cannot be square at the same time).
2. Such truths are not dependent on any particular physical object or being in-order to be true. Thus Physical objects are not efficient causes of these truths.
3. Such truths are always true; they are eternal truths.
4. Thus in-order for such to be true, such truths could only be the result of that which is itself the antithesis of nothing and is thus eternal and transcendent of physical beings.

Conclusion: If successful this would prove the existence of an eternal transcendent antithesis of nothing. However a potential rebuttal would be that even though this proves the existence of something eternal, this does not however prove that a mind has to exist in-order for such truths to be true; especially since you claim that such truths are mind independent in the first place.

How would you answer such a rebuttal?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All of the problems with reasoning deductively about God are flawed.

I much prefer the inductive arguments. For example:

**The universe appears to be full of laws rather than chaos.

It would appear that for this to be so there is probably a lawgiver.**

With this argument you get a God if you are a Christian and a Lawgiver if you are a Deist.

 

[Oreoracle]

I much prefer the inductive arguments. For example:

The universe appears to be full of laws rather than chaos.

It would appear that for this to be so there is probably a lawgiver.

Induction involves using examples or statistical data to reach a probabilistic conclusion. To reach a conclusion based on statistics, one needs a sample of the population about which one is making claims. We have never observed lawgivers creating physical laws, so we cannot induce that physical laws necessitate lawgivers.

Part of the problem here is that the language is wrongfully suggestive. There’s really no a priori reason to think that physical “laws” should be analogous to human laws.

 

[kselfri]

It’s important to understand that mathematics is invented, not discovered. It’s consistent because we choose consistent axioms for the basis of our mathematical theories. The same is true of logic; there are various kinds of logic, and they are invented for different purposes, not discovered. Consider intuitionist logic and paraconsistent logics for example.

So the fact that 1+1=2 wasn’t true until man *invented *it? I have to disagree, mathematical laws, which physics is based on, have been around long before man came along to realize them.

 

[kselfri]

There’s no way to prove 1 and 3.

Logic isn’t thought, it’s defined as reasoning using valid rules. Machines are ace at logic.

The conclusion doesn’t follow. It assumes the universe was created and that only minds can create universes.

But also, you could make a simpler argument along the same lines:

1. Matter exists everywhere in the universe.
   Therefore, matter created the universe.

You said logic is reasoning…but isn’t reasoning thinking, therefore thought?
Machines simply act according the laws of physics, which are based on math/logic.
Your premise #1 is untrue, matter doesn’t exist everywhere, so it’s not really along the same lines.

 

[oldcelt]

All of the problems with reasoning deductively about God are flawed.

I much prefer the inductive arguments. For example:

**The universe appears to be full of laws rather than chaos.

It would appear that for this to be so there is probably a lawgiver.**

With this argument you get a God if you are a Christian and a Lawgiver if you are a Deist.

Incorrect, you get the initiator of all creation if you are a Deist. The appearance of the universe is highly subjective.

 

[kselfri]

Would there be logic in the universe if there were not a mind? There are patterns of regularity in the universe, and these patterns would be there regardless of whether or not there were someone around to see them. They have been there, waiting for people to discover them.

Exactly. I keep seeing comments that claim math, logic, laws of physics, are inventions of man. They’re discovered. Gravity, electromagentism, nuclear forces, etc. were all acting in the universe well before man discovered them. The same for math: 2+1=3 was true before we came along - if you had 2 planets in a solar system, and one more formed in it, you’d have 3, whether or not man was there to add it in his head.

 

[atheistgirl]

I got very excited when I read the thread title

Unfortunately it has gone the way of all other ‘proofs’ of God

There’s no proof of God here

Sarah x

 

[Peter_Plato]

The conclusion doesn’t follow. It assumes the universe was created and that only minds can create universes.

But also, you could make a simpler argument along the same lines:

1. Matter exists everywhere in the universe.
   Therefore, matter created the universe.

The universe is defined as all matter, energy and space-time. Given the Big Bang was the initial moment of the universe, (energy, matter and space-time) how could matter create itself if it didn’t exist prior to itself? In fact, there was no “prior” space-time in which matter could have resided to create itself.

The question to be asked is whether ideas that minds have can be efficaciously causal. As thinking beings, humans continually have ideas and act on the basis of those ideas to form or in-form reality around us. Computer hardware and software are examples of logic (if-then sequencing) being embodied in a way that is causally effective.

If something like Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics is correct and informing the potential of matter is what makes physical things actual, then the actualizing power of Actus Purus (Pure or Fullness of Actuality) is what brings all matter, energy and space-time into existence by sharing actuality with potentiality (prime matter.)

Causality is an aspect and subset of logical sequencing.

If x, then y.
x
Therefore, y

Creating something is simply embodying the above sequence in the sense of providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for x which, then, brings about y.

The interesting thing about the logic of “If x, then y,” is that it need not be causal in a chronologically sequential mode. x merely has to obtain for y to be per se. The sequence does not need time to be true.

The important question is, Why does x entail (or bring about) y?

That question will never be answered without getting beyond the curtain of appearance to what lies behind - there is no other explanatory candidate except the Mind of God. There is not even another discernible possibility. “It’s a “brute fact” about matter” doesn’t cut explanatory muster - it merely surrenders to a “gap” type of response that atheists are so fond of chastising theists for committing.

See “Can you Explain Something by Appealing to a "Brute Fact.”

 

[kselfri]

Logic is a rational tool which we use to render reality intelligible to us, revealing to us the intrinsic intelligibility of the material world.

There is an argument from intelligibility; this, however, can’t be called a form of it. The conclusion seems to leave us with a form of panpsychism or solipsism, not God.

The conclusion was not *intended *to be panpsychism or solipsism, but I can see how you could be left to that conclusion. It’s intent is the universe is the result of a divine mind, that of God.

You say logic is a rational tool, which implies it’s invented. So logic didn’t exist until man invented it? So the universe didn’t follow the mathematical laws of physics, until man invented a tool to understand it? To me, your concept of intrinsic intelligibility and logic are one in the same, they are there whether man exists or not. Logic/mathmatical laws are the foundation of reality, making existence possible. Otherwise, any and every thing would chaotically dissolve into nothingness.

 

[kselfri]

I got very excited when I read the thread title

Unfortunately it has gone the way of all other ‘proofs’ of God

There’s no proof of God here

Sarah x

Sorry I let you down, I thought it was worth a shot.

So what would you consider as proof? What would it take?

 

[kselfri]

The universe is defined as all matter, energy and space-time. Given the Big Bang was the initial moment of the universe, (energy, matter and space-time) how could matter create itself if it didn’t exist prior to itself? In fact, there was no “prior” space-time in which matter could have resided to create itself.

The question to be asked is whether ideas that minds have can be efficaciously causal. As thinking beings, humans continually have ideas and act on the basis of those ideas to form or in-form reality around us. Computer hardware and software are examples of logic (if-then sequencing) being embodied in a way that is causally effective.

If something like Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics is correct and informing the potential of matter is what makes physical things actual, then the actualizing power of Actus Purus (Pure or Fullness of Actuality) is what brings all matter, energy and space-time into existence by sharing actuality with potentiality (prime matter.)

Causality is an aspect and subset of logical sequencing.

If x, then y.
x
Therefore, y

Creating something is simply embodying the above sequence in the sense of providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for x which, then, brings about y.

The interesting thing about the logic of “If x, then y,” is that it need not be causal in a chronologically sequential mode. x merely has to obtain for y to be per se. The sequence does not need time to be true.

The important question is, Why does x entail (or bring about) y?

That question will never be answered without getting beyond the curtain of appearance to what lies behind - there is no other explanatory candidate except the Mind of God. There is not even another discernible possibility. “It’s a “brute fact” about matter” doesn’t cut explanatory muster - it merely surrenders to a “gap” type of response that atheists are so fond of chastising theists for committing.

See “Can you Explain Something by Appealing to a "Brute Fact.”

Your response has prompted me make another point, I feel I’m going off on a tangent doing so. Since logic/math doesn’t require matter, energy, or even dimensions of space and time to exist, it’s one thing that could exist before the Big Bang. Since logic/math doesn’t require the dimension of time to exist, it has no beginning or end. Beginnings and endings require sequencing, and sequencing requires the dimension of time. Not having a beginning or end is an attribute which most people who believe in God, also associate with God.