A Priori Proof for God's Existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferdgoodfellow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what now?

With apologies to whoever wrote the Princess Bride:

Ferd:I challenge you to a battle of wits.
Vera_Ljuba: For God, Christendom and all that is Good, Beautiful and True?
Ferd: [nods]
Vera_Ljuba : To the death?
Ferd: [nods]
Vera_Ljuba: I accept!

Vera_Ljuba: I can’t compete with you physically, and you’re no match for my brains.
Ferd: You’re that smart?
Vera_Ljuba: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventura, Fishacre, Decartes, Leibnitz, Malcolm, Hartshorne, Whitehead, Goedel, Plantinga?
Ferd: Yes.
Vera_Ljuba: Morons.

Vera, I, being a BOVLB, nevertheless have to admit that I am stumped. I will have to get back to you.
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
All I am saying is that Vera’s way of doing possible worlds assumes that all existential propositions can be true or false. It should come as no surprise, then, that Vera’s analysis concludes that no entity can exist in all possible worlds. According to his definition of possible worlds, they can’t.
Click to expand...
Yes, Vera’s way of doing things seems to have little in common with the literature.

The OED definition of a priori is “relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience”.

So “all bachelors are unmarried” is deduced a priori purely from the definitions of “bachelor” and “unmarried”. It is true whether or not any bachelors actually exist in the world, because it doesn’t depend on anything other than the definitions. Even if there were no unmarried men, it would still be true that “all bachelors are unmarried”. (So it doesn’t matter that right after the big bang there were no bachelors, or that there are many possible worlds with no bachelors, the proposition is necessarily true as it only depends on the definitions).

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.
 
inocente said:
First, it requires that God must be defined, but the biblical God refuses to be defined (“I am who I am” Exodus 3).
Click to expand...
I have not seen that interpretation before, but it would follow depending on the translation.
I’m accustomed to the Douay Rheims Catholic translation:

God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

That would make a difference since God is defining Himself there as the One Who Is. Thus this lines up with God as “fullness of being”.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Justice is when you get what you deserve. (Either reward or punishment).
Mercy is when you DON’T get what you deserve. (Punishment)
Grace is when get what you DON’T deserve. (Reward)
Click to expand...
In the Christian way, “deserts” are subject to love. We are no longer held to the power of the law alone. (the law helps lead us to love, but the law and our merits are not the end in itself)
From our beginning, we deserve nothing. We exist out of a gratuitous outpouring of love. We did not come into being because we are willful, or powerful, or accomplished.
We do not exist because we deserve to, and we do not become united with God because we are on a par with God.
We exist because of something outside ourselves, AKA grace, or “gift”.
 
I think atheists don’t often hear enough about the benefits that God confers on people - not only in eternity, but in this life.

I think that issue separates atheists and opens up a perspective.

If told about something that enhances your life, makes things better for you and has a multitude of benefits, what response to you give?

Harshness, ridicule, contempt, shutting it down?
or
Open-minded wonder, interest, pursuit, exploration and desire for it?

When I see the first response, I think “This person has become embittered for some reason. He sees something potentially good and is filled with hatred against it. That’s not a normal response. Something is wrong with that person.”
 
reggieM said:
I have not seen that interpretation before, but it would follow depending on the translation.
I’m accustomed to the Douay Rheims Catholic translation:

God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. Thus this lines up with God as “fullness of being”.

That would make a difference since God is defining Himself there as the One Who Is.
Click to expand...
The Hebrew is אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה, which is classed as a verb and seems to be first person singular of ‘to be’. - biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/3-14.htm

Douay–Rheims seems unique, all others translate it as “I AM has sent me”. - biblehub.com/exodus/3-14.htm

Although strictly, it seems to be future tense, ‘I will be that I will be’. The Cambridge commentary says:

Jehovah promises that He will be, to Moses and His people, what He will be,—something which is undefined, but which, as His full nature is more and more completely unfolded by the lessons of history and the teaching of the prophets, will prove to be more than words can express.

Ellicott says:

My nature, i.e., cannot be declared in words, cannot be conceived of by human thought. I exist in such sort that my whole inscrutable nature is implied in my existence. I exist, as nothing else does—necessarily, eternally, really. If I am to give myself a name expressive of my nature, so far as language can be, let me be called “I AM.”
 
inocente said:
The Hebrew is אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה, which is classed as a verb and seems to be first person singular of ‘to be’. - biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/3-14.htm

Douay–Rheims seems unique, all others translate it as “I AM has sent me”. - biblehub.com/exodus/3-14.htm
Click to expand...
Yes, true, although the remainder of the quote (KJV) :

Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

Is very common in translations. The Douay, instead of “I AM” says “HE WHO IS”. So, there may be more of a definition there. In other words, God is not entirely incomprehensible, but yes to fully reduce God to the limits of human reason would be wrong.
Ellicott says:
Click to expand...
My nature, i.e., cannot be declared in words, cannot be conceived of by human thought. I exist in such sort that my whole inscrutable nature is implied in my existence. I exist, as nothing else does—necessarily, eternally, really. If I am to give myself a name expressive of my nature, so far as language can be, let me be called “I AM.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This may be getting at what I was looking at. Notice that Ellicott states that God’s nature cannot be expressed, but we do have some ways of attempting to describe Him “I exist as nothing else does – necessarily [very relevant to this OP!], eternally, really.”
Then he finishes with something more definite. Not “I AM WHO I AM” - which would sound like “whatever I am, you can’t know it - so I am who I am and that’s all I can say” – but instead, just “I AM”.

Jesus follows this in John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I AM”. To me, this seems more definite. Jesus is talking about a timelessness in His being.
So yes, we cannot fully understand - but we have this hints and aspects that we can build an understanding upon.
 
inocente said:
Yes, Vera’s way of doing things seems to have little in common with the literature.
Click to expand...
The concept of “possible world” is exactly what it says. A state of affairs, which is different from the existing reality. The concept of “necessary being” is exactly how it is being used by everyone. Something that cannot fail to exist, or in other words, something that exists is all the possible worlds. Both of these definitions come from the existing literature.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/ It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/A state of affairs that is different from the existing reality in some respect

These two concepts are that I was analyzing. 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.

google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=indirect+proof+example&spf=1500300697913To do this, you must assume the negation of the statement to be proved. Then, deductive reasoning will lead to a contradiction: two statements that cannot both be true. A contradiction shows that the assumption made earlier is impossible, and therefore false.

I have no idea what remains on this old bone to be chewed. The whole proof makes no mention about “God”. It is a purely philosophical line of thought.
 
reggieM said:
I think atheists don’t often hear enough about the benefits that God confers on people - not only in eternity, but in this life.
Click to expand...
In this life? Please, open a new thread and enumerate those benefits. Let’s not derail this one. Just don’t make it a farce, like saying: “the smile of the bay-bees is a sign of God’s benevolence”. Or saying “look at the sunshine, it is sign of God’s love”. Tell us about the benefits, that clearly, unmistakably, unequivocally come from God. 🙂 That no sane person can mistake for a natural occurrence. 😉 Go for it. I can hardly wait.
 
ferdgoodfellow said:
So, given our definition of God (for now anyway), and given that there are reasonable grounds for the possibility of a necessary existing entity, this argument works.

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.]
  3. It is possible to conceive of an entity which cannot fail to exist.
    [Necessary existence is possible, the only other possibility being contingent existence.]
  4. An entity as in 3 is greater than one which conceivably could have failed to exist.
    [This is Anselm’s principle from Proslogion 3. Note that it is different from the principle in Proslogion 2 which asserts that existence is greater than non-existence.]
  5. It is conceivable that TTWNGCBT does not exist.
    [Assumption that TTWNGCBT exists contingently for reductio ad absurd argument]
  6. But 5 leads to a contradiction because I could then conceive of something greater, namely something which exists without the conceivable alternative of not existing.
  7. 5 is therefore rejected.
  8. Therefore TTWNGCBT cannot conceivably fail to exist.
    [There being no other alternative.]
  9. Therefore God exists.
Click to expand...
How do you reach from 8 to 9? There is a gap there. There is a big difference between being conceivable and existence.
 
The phrase “dripping with sarcasm, bitterness and ennui” comes to mind.

It’s a state of soul, with negativity as its primary feature. A spiritual sickness - blindness even.

Atheism is anti-human, so all of that should be expected.
 
reggieM said:
The phrase “dripping with sarcasm, bitterness and ennui” comes to mind.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top