A Priori Proof for God's Existence

[goout]

Baloney. It is a simple request - by taking your proposition seriously. I am ready to contemplate “all the benefits that God confers to people in this life”. The ball is in your court. Not that there is anything wrong with a little sarcasm, but in this case there was none.

Is it good that you exist?
Explain your existence (I know…your parents had sex )

 

[inocente]

And I presented a proof that the concept of necessary being is impossible. The proof I presented is exactly the same kind that we can use to prove the nonexistence of two positive integers, the ratio of which (p/q) equals exactly to the value of the square root of two - sqrt(2). Start with the hypotheses that such an entity exists, perform a few transformations, and arrive at a logical contradiction.

All you’ve done there is prove that some theorems can’t be derived from the axioms. Everyone knew that.

Consider :

There are various entities which, if they exist, would be candidates for necessary beings: God, propositions, relations, properties, states of affairs, possible worlds, and numbers, among others. - plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

Your “proof” relies on the necessary being of rules of arithmetic, etc. Without them having necessary being, i.e. in all possible worlds, there can be a world where p/q is indeed the square root of two. So your “proof” contradicts itself.

I can take the laws of logic, assert a world where they don’t exist, and according to you that proves the laws of logic have no necessary being. But if there are possible worlds where the laws of logic don’t exist, you can “prove” or “disprove” anything you please, and logic has no value.

I’m surprised you have such a magnificently large blind spot that you still can’t see that whatever you’re doing, it’s not logic. Stop and think. Either you, posting on the internet, have “proved” something no one else has ever been able to do. Or you are mistaken.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

…But imho there are big problems with trying to make an a priori proof of God’s existence.

First, it requires that God must be defined, but the biblical God refuses to be defined (“I am who I am” Exodus 3). Even Anselm’s definition, “a being than which no greater can be conceived”, still limits God to what we can conceive.

Second, we can’t know the truth of the proposition “bachelors exist” without a posteriori knowledge of the world (we need to know if there are currently any unmarried men in the world). Similarly the truth of “God exists” would seem to rely on a posteriori knowledge of the world.

In talking about God we inevitably employ definitions of God, however imperfect. God is the eternal being, God is the all-powerful being, etc. These are positive descriptions of God, none of which captures the full reality of God. The point is God is not absolutely undefinable. If he were, then it would be impossible to talk about Him, let alone prove His existence. Indeed, to say God is absolutely undefinable is to say there can be no idea of God, which means God’s existence is impossible (what the logical positivists have said all along).

Anselm’s definition does not limit God to what is conceivable. In fact, Anselm deduces in a later chapter of the Proslogion that God is always greater than we can conceive.

So whatever conception of God that humans can come up with will always fall short. Whatever our idea is, we know at the outset that this does not capture the full reality of God.

 

[STT]

In talking about God we inevitably employ definitions of God, however imperfect. God is the eternal being, God is the all-powerful being, etc. These are positive descriptions of God, none of which captures the full reality of God. The point is God is not absolutely undefinable. If he were, then it would be impossible to talk about Him, let alone prove His existence. Indeed, to say God is absolutely undefinable is to say there can be no idea of God, which means God’s existence is impossible (what the logical positivists have said all along).

Anselm’s definition does not limit God to what is conceivable. In fact, Anselm deduces in a later chapter of the Proslogion that God is always greater than we can conceive.

So whatever conception of God that humans can come up with will always fall short. Whatever our idea is, we know at the outset that this does not capture the full reality of God.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? If we always short in conceiving God then God is undefinable.

 

[reggieM]

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? If we always short in conceiving God then God is undefinable.

It’s an approximation. You can’t circumscribe an absolute infinite. But you can say something about it.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Second, we can’t know the truth of the proposition “bachelors exist” without a posteriori knowledge of the world (we need to know if there are currently any unmarried men in the world). Similarly the truth of “God exists” would seem to rely on a posteriori knowledge of the world.

St. Tom of Aquino would agree.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? If we always short in conceiving God then God is undefinable.

Hi STT,

See wut Reggie sed

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

All you’ve done there is prove that some theorems can’t be derived from the axioms. Everyone knew that.

Does everyone (?) understand the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem? I doubt it. Even though it is simple. It says: “In every formal (axiomatic) system there are theorems which are true, but cannot be derived for the axioms.” But it is not applicable here. The process of eliminating certain entities from the existing (and therefore possible world) is very straightforward, and does not lead to a contradiction. We do not deal with an axiomatic system here.

Consider :

There are various entities which, if they exist, would be candidates for necessary beings: God, propositions, relations, properties, states of affairs, possible worlds, and numbers, among others. - plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

Your “proof” relies on the necessary being of rules of arithmetic, etc. Without them having necessary being, i.e. in all possible worlds, there can be a world where p/q is indeed the square root of two. So your “proof” contradicts itself.

I can take the laws of logic, assert a world where they don’t exist, and according to you that proves the laws of logic have no necessary being. But if there are possible worlds where the laws of logic don’t exist, you can “prove” or “disprove” anything you please, and logic has no value.

Well, the “stuff” the encyclopedia enumerates are not in the same class. And it does not say that any of those “things” ARE necessary beings, it only says that they would be candidates for such a role. However, except for “God” none the other ones are ontological entities, they are all “abstractions”. And the whole shebang of “necessary” being was developed to be able to prove that God exists - not just as a concept, but as an actual “ontological entity”.

There are some philosophers who consider “abstract objects” part of every possible world. Some others say that they exist independently from all the possible physical worlds. But that is ridiculous. I would be willing to participate in a conversation about “abstract objects”. Concepts are contingent upon the ontological existence of those beings who are able to “conceptualize”. In a world without any thinking beings there are no abstractions or concepts of any kind.

In the postulated “super-simple worlds” of one elementary particles, it is correct that the “attribute” of “one” is present in all of them (but not the attribute of “two”, or the relation of “next to”). But that is not helpful, since the attribute is not an ontological being.

I’m surprised you have such a magnificently large blind spot that you still can’t see that whatever you’re doing, it’s not logic. Stop and think. Either you, posting on the internet, have “proved” something no one else has ever been able to do. Or you are mistaken.

H. pylori was first discovered in the stomachs of patients with gastritis and ulcers in 1982 by Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren of Perth, Australia. At the time, the conventional thinking was that no bacterium could live in the acid environment of the human stomach.
They were ridiculed for their outrageous idea… until they proved that they are right. There is nothing surprising about presenting some new idea, which was never contemplated before. So your proposition is: “This is new, therefore you are mistaken. After all everything worthwhile was developed by Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, and their cohorts. Nothing new has been thought of since their ideas.” That does not carry a lot of weight.

Show me where the systematic “downsizing” of the of the current world leads to logically impossible state of affairs, and I will concede defeat.

 

[inocente]

In talking about God we inevitably employ definitions of God, however imperfect. God is the eternal being, God is the all-powerful being, etc. These are positive descriptions of God, none of which captures the full reality of God. The point is God is not absolutely undefinable. If he were, then it would be impossible to talk about Him, let alone prove His existence. Indeed, to say God is absolutely undefinable is to say there can be no idea of God, which means God’s existence is impossible (what the logical positivists have said all along).

Anselm’s definition does not limit God to what is conceivable. In fact, Anselm deduces in a later chapter of the Proslogion that God is always greater than we can conceive.

So whatever conception of God that humans can come up with will always fall short. Whatever our idea is, we know at the outset that this does not capture the full reality of God.

Yes but in normal faith we don’t try to prove the existence of God, and so no total definition need be attempted, and descriptions are fine. Which is biblical, as it complies with God saying He will be what he is, not what we define him to be. (Remember other passages also, such as Is 55 ““For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD.”

But to attempt an a priori proof you must carefully define God for the purposes of the argument. For instance, the first two steps in Anselm’s argument are:

1. [definition] God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.
2. God [by that definition] exists as an idea in the mind.

But if you then replace that definition with ‘God is a being greater than can be conceived’, the second step fails immediately - God can’t possibly exist as an idea in the mind if God is greater than can be conceived. So now no one will be convinced since there’s a logical contradiction.

 

[inocente]

Does everyone (?) understand the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem? I doubt it. Even though it is simple. It says: “In every formal (axiomatic) system there are theorems which are true, but cannot be derived for the axioms.” But it is not applicable here. The process of eliminating certain entities from the existing (and therefore possible world) is very straightforward, and does not lead to a contradiction. We do not deal with an axiomatic system here.

Yes it is!!! I quoted your p/q proof and said “All you’ve done there is prove that some theorems can’t be derived from the axioms”. Your p/q proof relies on the Peano axioms!!!

Enough!!! There’s none so blind as those who will not see!!!

Well, the “stuff” the encyclopedia enumerates are not in the same class. And it does not say that any of those “things” ARE necessary beings, it only says that they would be candidates for such a role. However, except for “God” none the other ones are ontological entities, they are all “abstractions”. And the whole shebang of “necessary” being was developed to be able to prove that God exists - not just as a concept, but as an actual “ontological entity”.

There are some philosophers who consider “abstract objects” part of every possible world. Some others say that they exist independently from all the possible physical worlds. But that is ridiculous. I would be willing to participate in a conversation about “abstract objects”. Concepts are contingent upon the ontological existence of those beings who are able to “conceptualize”. In a world without any thinking beings there are no abstractions or concepts of any kind.

In the postulated “super-simple worlds” of one elementary particles, it is correct that the “attribute” of “one” is present in all of them (but not the attribute of “two”, or the relation of “next to”). But that is not helpful, since the attribute is not an ontological being.

Of course the author says they’re candidates, it’s only the third sentence of the introduction and he’s not yet had time to prove anything.

Then you dismiss a swathe of philosophers. On the one hand there are lots of peer reviewed papers. On the other hand there’s a single internet poster who dismisses their papers as “ridiculous” while appearing not to understand what is being said.

H. pylori was first discovered in the stomachs of patients with gastritis and ulcers in 1982 by Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren of Perth, Australia. At the time, the conventional thinking was that no bacterium could live in the acid environment of the human stomach.
They were ridiculed for their outrageous idea… until they proved that they are right. There is nothing surprising about presenting some new idea, which was never contemplated before. So your proposition is: “This is new, therefore you are mistaken. After all everything worthwhile was developed by Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, and their cohorts. Nothing new has been thought of since their ideas.*” That does not carry a lot of weight.

You are putting words in my mouth. None of them is relevant to model logic and a lot of what some of them said is wrong. But they all made serious contributions. When your ‘proof’ has been published in a peer reviewed journal and other authors have given it positive citations then your ‘proof’ will be taken seriously. Not before.

Show me where the systematic “downsizing” of the of the current world leads to logically impossible state of affairs, and I will concede defeat.

Again, you define something not to exist and then claim you’ve proved something. I’ve spent far too much time on this detour, please read the literature on modal logic and do some studying, see you on another thread.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes it is!!! I quoted your p/q proof and said “All you’ve done there is prove that some theorems can’t be derived from the axioms”. Your p/q proof relies on the Peano axioms!!!

You missed the point. All I did was bring up an illustration to show how the principle of “indirect proof” works. It is mostly used in mathematics, but the epistemological principle of “indirect proof” is applicable everywhere.

Then you dismiss a swathe of philosophers.

Sure. Why not? Just because they are professional navel-gazers, their speculations do not need to be taken seriously.

When your ‘proof’ has been published in a peer reviewed journal and other authors have given it positive citations then your ‘proof’ will be taken seriously. Not before.

If you could point out an error in my reasoning, you could have done so.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Hi inocente,

Let’s use the formulation of the argument from #137 to avoid confusion:

Here is a version based mostly on Hartshorne:

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought (TTWNGCBT).
   [This is Anselm’s definition of God]
2. It is possible to consistently conceive an entity as TTWNGCBT.
   [Our conception of God is thinkable or contains no contradictions.]

Yes but in normal faith we don’t try to prove the existence of God, and so no total definition need be attempted, and descriptions are fine.

Again, Anselm does not offer his definition as a total definition. He is very conscious of that. He also, I think, was attempting to fashion an argument which would appeal to non-believers, at least the type that accepted his definition but don’t believe on empirical grounds. So the audience he was trying to reach was intended to go beyond those who already believe (Karl Barth would have a different view). In any case, his idea has beguiled and engaged religious and secular philosophers alike over the centuries unto the present day.

But to attempt an a priori proof you must carefully define God for the purposes of the argument.

Of course. Anselm was consumed with his quest for his unum argumentum for God’s existence, to the point where he wasn’t eating or sleeping. His definition was very carefully formulated. It had its roots in his earlier work, the Monologion, which in turn was informed by St. Augustine.

But, one has to admit, it is a very strange definition. [In fact, Bishop Robert Barron once gave a seminary lecture titled “The Very Strange God of Anselm.”] It is designed more as rule of thought, an algorithm, if you will. Come up with a conception of God, the rule says, and then conclude it does not capture God in his total reality. Repeat. It is a via negativa. We can’t define God like we can an elephant or a man, but we can say what God isn’t using the sole criterion of greatness.

The definition is also ultimately abstract. It does not attempt to describe God concretely (who could?).

But it is always pointing at something. “Ineffable” is the word Anselm uses.

Finally, Hartshorne points out that this definition serves the needs of the religious person, for it is consistent with the notion of worship. To worship something is to exalt that thing above all things, to love it with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength. So, according to the Anselm’s rule of thought, worshipping lesser gods makes no sense. We only want to worship the unsurpassable Greatest.

 

[inocente]

You missed the point. All I did was bring up an illustration to show how the principle of “indirect proof” works. It is mostly used in mathematics, but the epistemological principle of “indirect proof” is applicable everywhere.

And you missed the point again. Your p/q proof relies on the existence of the Peano axioms in all possible worlds, otherwise it only works in some worlds, it’s contingent. Just as your ‘proof’ that there are no necessary beings relies on you using the same logic in all possible worlds. But anything which exists in all possible worlds is by definition not contingent, it’s necessary. Logical contradiction.

*Sure. Why not? Just because they are professional navel-gazers, their speculations do not need to be taken seriously. *

That’s not a credible description of professional philosophy.

If you could point out an error in my reasoning, you could have done so.

I’ve said why your reasoning is faulty in as many ways as I can think of, to no avail.

 

[reggieM]

We can’t define God like we can an elephant or a man, but we can say what God isn’t using the sole criterion of greatness.

You seemed to say previously that we cannot use that at all because we can’t know what “greatness” is, agreeing with Vera (following Hume) that we don’t know what the greatest island is – or did I miss that?

 

[inocente]

Hi inocente,

Let’s use the formulation of the argument from #137 to avoid confusion:

Here is a version based mostly on Hartshorne:

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought (TTWNGCBT).
   [This is Anselm’s definition of God]
2. It is possible to consistently conceive an entity as TTWNGCBT.
   [Our conception of God is thinkable or contains no contradictions.]

OK

Again, Anselm does not offer his definition as a total definition. He is very conscious of that. He also, I think, was attempting to fashion an argument which would appeal to non-believers, at least the type that accepted his definition but don’t believe on empirical grounds. So the audience he was trying to reach was intended to go beyond those who already believe (Karl Barth would have a different view). In any case, his idea has beguiled and engaged religious and secular philosophers alike over the centuries unto the present day.

You know a lot more about him than me. I think you’re right that he was trying to make an evangelical argument, but I think he is going for a total definition. After all, we can ask is TTWNGCBT all powerful by definition? Surely so, since all powerful is that than which nothing greater can be thought. Is TTWNGCBT all good? Surely so by the same reasoning. Etc.

But agreed, that says nothing about the Father, Son and Spirit. It seems closer to the meaning of the Moslem Allāhu akbar = God is the greatest .

*Of course. Anselm was consumed with his quest for his unum argumentum for God’s existence, to the point where he wasn’t eating or sleeping. His definition was very carefully formulated. It had its roots in his earlier work, the Monologion, which in turn was informed by St. Augustine.

But, one has to admit, it is a very strange definition. [In fact, Bishop Robert Barron once gave a seminary lecture titled “The Very Strange God of Anselm.”] It is designed more as rule of thought, an algorithm, if you will. Come up with a conception of God, the rule says, and then conclude it does not capture God in his total reality. Repeat. It is a via negativa. We can’t define God like we can an elephant or a man, but we can say what God isn’t using the sole criterion of greatness.

The definition is also ultimately abstract. It does not attempt to describe God concretely (who could?).

But it is always pointing at something. “Ineffable” is the word Anselm uses.

Finally, Hartshorne points out that this definition serves the needs of the religious person, for it is consistent with the notion of worship. To worship something is to exalt that thing above all things, to love it with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength. So, according to the Anselm’s rule of thought, worshipping lesser gods makes no sense. We only want to worship the unsurpassable Greatest.*

If I remember, Anselm has a notion that all moral goods derive from one good; there is one good through which they are all good. It seemed to me to go further than ‘praise God from whom all blessings flow!’ into the idea that all goods are, as it were, made of the same essence. Along with Aristotle, Aquinas & Co., some of the natures/essences they think have an objective reality, we would say only exist between our ears. For that reason, to me TTWNGCBT must be wrong because an alien almost certainly has a different NGCBT.

But although for me his proof fails, as you say Anselm seems to be reaching for something worthwhile. We have a phrase “God in your back pocket”, by which we disparage any attempt to make God in our image or limit God. Jews go further, they won’t say God, and G-d dwelled in the Holy of Holies. Maybe Anselm is reaching for that respect and reverence, as opposed to yon unmoved mover type of definition.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And you missed the point again. Your p/q proof relies on the existence of the Peano axioms in all possible worlds, otherwise it only works in some worlds, it’s contingent. Just as your ‘proof’ that there are no necessary beings relies on you using the same logic in all possible worlds. But anything which exists in all possible worlds is by definition not contingent, it’s necessary. Logical contradiction.

The mathematical axioms are arbitrary. The laws of logic are not. One can create any set of propositions - which do not contain a logical inconsistency and create a hierarchical system. Some of them would qualify as a foundation of mathematics. Of course that does mean that the laws of logic “exist” in a possible world. Abstractions, concepts have no ontological existence.

That’s not a credible description of professional philosophy.

It is for me. We could do just fine without the philosophers. They could be used as janitors and do some productive work.

I’ve said why your reasoning is faulty in as many ways as I can think of, to no avail.

That is not an argument. If you wished to why the proof fails, you should show that the “downsizing” of the actual reality will somehow result in a logical inconsistency. Nothing else will do.

 

[inocente]

The mathematical axioms are arbitrary. The laws of logic are not. One can create any set of propositions - which do not contain a logical inconsistency and create a hierarchical system. Some of them would qualify as a foundation of mathematics. Of course that does mean that the laws of logic “exist” in a possible world. Abstractions, concepts have no ontological existence.

It is for me. We could do just fine without the philosophers. They could be used as janitors and do some productive work.

That is not an argument. If you wished to why the proof fails, you should show that the “downsizing” of the actual reality will somehow result in a logical inconsistency. Nothing else will do.

You are making this downsizing claim, by which you magically define out of existence anything you please. You’ve acknowledged you’re the first person in the entire history of the world to come up with your brilliant argument. When it is published in a peer reviewed journal and you’re famous, I will dutifully eat my hat. Until that happy day, I’ve rebutted your argument in as many ways as I can think of and am dizzy from dancing in circles. See you on another thread.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You are making this downsizing claim, by which you magically define out of existence anything you please.

This “magic” is simply a thought experiment. The “downsizing” would fail, if the removal of some entity would lead to a logically inconsistent state of affairs.

You’ve acknowledged you’re the first person in the entire history of the world to come up with your brilliant argument.

I only said that I have not seen it before.

Until that happy day, I’ve rebutted your argument in as many ways as I can think of.

You did not rebut the only way that it could be “rebutted”.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

You seemed to say previously that we cannot use that at all because we can’t know what “greatness” is, agreeing with Vera (following Hume) that we don’t know what the greatest island is – or did I miss that?

If we can’t know what greatness is—i.e. it is undefinable—then there is no concept of greatness and the argument fails from the get-go.

Anselm just took it for granted that TTWNGCBT has meaning, and from his Augustinian/Platonic tradition, it certainly would. That tradition assumed a hierarchy of being with varying degrees of existence. A dog is greater than a bug, a horse is greater than a dog, and a man is greater than a horse, and so on. However, this is a different time and the question is whether the modern secular mind can make sense of it.

The modern mind quite readily makes comparisons between things in particular respects. A man is smarter than a horse. However, it balks at absolute value judgments. After all, while a man’s intelligence is greater than a horse, a horse’s strength is greater than a man’s. In what sense, then, can a man, absolutely speaking, be greater than a horse? And here is the kicker: Can we answer this from the concept of greatness itself without resort to the Great Chain of Being or to causal arguments?

 

[STT]

If we can’t know what greatness is—i.e. it is undefinable—then there is no concept of greatness and the argument fails from the get-go.

Greatness can be defined. Please see the following.

Anselm just took it for granted that TTWNGCBT has meaning, and from his Augustinian/Platonic tradition, it certainly would. That tradition assumed a hierarchy of being with varying degrees of existence. A dog is greater than a bug, a horse is greater than a dog, and a man is greater than a horse, and so on. However, this is a different time and the question is whether the modern secular mind can make sense of it.

We can of course conceive the concept of God. That does’t however mean that It really exists.

The modern mind quite readily makes comparisons between things in particular respects. A man is smarter than a horse. However, it balks at absolute value judgments. After all, while a man’s intelligence is greater than a horse, a horse’s strength is greater than a man’s. In what sense, then, can a man, absolutely speaking, be greater than a horse? And here is the kicker: Can we answer this from the concept of greatness itself without resort to the Great Chain of Being or to causal arguments?

Greatness is relative concept therefore it can always be defined when we have two things with some measurable property.