Common fallacies in the proofs of God's existence

[R_Daneel]

Why must we so limit non-material entities to concepts, ideas and abstractions? Anyway, these are at least as poorly defined as God might be. For example, what is a concept or idea? What is an abstraction? They are but beings of the mind. You say they have an ontological existence, but, do they not actually have a metaphysical existence?

I did not say that we “must” limit them. Any and all attempted proof of God’s existence would refute this limitation. But the process of proving God cannot include the hypothesis of non-physical and non-conceptual existence. Of course the assumption is part of the hypothesis, which is perfectly all right.

There is no logic, no set of premises, and no syllogism that irrefutably, defeats the existence of connatural and metaphysical exigencies. That which over half the population of the world believes exists – has a much right of expression as does any knowledge from science. It is knowledge that exists about “real objects” and “objects of knowledge” and existence – just like science; therefore, to merely postulate their fate to myth is to commit a fallacy of Appeal to Consequences of Belief.

As opposed to the fallacy of “argumentum ad numerum”? Just because many people believe something does not make it valid. On the other hand, the idea that “by their fruits you shall know them”, is a sensible method to separate the wheat for the chaff.

And, causation, is still a word and concept used by every scientist whether or not they can define it.

Sure they can. Causation is the interaction of physical particles.

Your fake distinction between for and within will not stand either. All that we know about for the universe is from within the universe. If as an intelligent creature I watch some giants on the outside of a bell jar removing the air from within the bell jar, I can surely make conclusions about it, and what will happen.

Incorrect eaxmple. Both you, the giant and the bell jar are part of the physical universe. You cannot automatically extrapolate for the whole universe. That would be the fallacy of composition.

 

[R_Daneel]

Glad to hear that. Then you are not properly defining what a thought is or what an object of thought is. An object of thought is a snapshot, in glorious 3-D, that contains all of those things that make the original object Real, including its precise smells! Now, people can have certain abberated senses, but, not 6.5 billion of us.

No, not ALL the details. The concept of an object is a “simplification” or “model-forming” of the object. Of course, I am not sure what your point is. In the OP I already allowed for the non-physical existence, precisely so we could have a common platform as a starting point.

There are no such things a “brute facts.” Those are things humans are either unable or too lazy to explain.

Oh, brother! So you hold that the PSR (principle of sufficient reason) is a universal requirement? It is applicable to everything? If so, then it is applicable to itself - which leads to an absurdity. If you say that it is not applicable to itself, then you already have an exception, so there is at least one brute fact, namely the PSR. Besides, the basic principles and axioms are not “explainable”, so there are quite a few exceptions to the PSR. Materialists hold the Universe as a brute fact. Theist hold God as a brute fact. The alleged proofs for God’s existence attempt to show that materialist view is incorrect. But such a proof, if it were successful cannot rely on some fallacies.

 

[R_Daneel]

If redness exists as the real consequence of a real perception; even if that perception is relative; then that redness has a distinct and real existence; even if such an existence is not an objective or universal existance.

Sure, as a concept it exists. I have no problem with it.

You make the premise that God cannot be proven; merely upon your assumption that your position (some odd form of conceptualism from the sounds of it) is the correct one. From the perspective of people who are realists (moderate or extreme) the existence of God (in general) has been demonstrated.

It looks like that the conversation between you and me cannot even take off the ground. We have no common platform as a starting point. I will explain mine.

I use the term “existence” in two different ways: physical existence (P-existence) and conceptual existence (C-existence). The two should not be confused. There is no C-existence if there are no minds which are able to conceptualize. Yes, I am aware that there are some philosophers who assert the “existence” of “abstract objects”. I do not accept that view. In this thread I am asking the believers to prove that there is a third type of existence (X-existence) which is not physical, and not purely conceptual either.

P-existence is simple, physical existence, which is present even if there are no beings around who can observe it. P-existence has attributes, which exist without an observer. These attributes are not necessarily “physical”, the attribute of “one” is not a physical object. Whe we speak of more than one physical objects, there are relationships between them, for example the “distance” between the objects. The distance is not a physical object either.

I brought up these non-physical examples to show that the materialistice worldview does not restrict itself to the “purely” physical object.

If you wish to convince a materialist you should start from the materialist worldview. That sounds like a reasonable expectation to me. Otherwise you could just go to this website (godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm), pick one or more of the “proofs”, and declare “victory”.

“Mathematically speaking”?

Yes. Mathematics, and within it: “set theory” is the ultimate abstraction.

That is absurd!!! You state it is “of some external entity” which is identical to the claim that it was caused by “some cause which does not belong to this totality”. This is an Equivocal fallacy and is absurd.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean here. I simply agreed that an object or event may be the corollary of a causative factor (and my wording expressed exatly that). What is “absurd” about it? You did not reflect on the second part, which expressed that the object or event may also be a “brute fact”.

You know, I am not impressed by labels. You may call yourself a “realist”, and call mine "some odd form of conceptualism ", but that is just a word-game. If you wish to argue against a materialist, do it on the materialist ground. Otherwise we just keep talking past each other.

 

[R_Daneel]

I was not presenting it as an argument. I was presenting it as a condition of Catholic belief. Its a dogma of faith. Regardless of whether or not people have actually proven Gods existence, Catholics must at the very least believe that it is in principle a possibility.

So what? I simply said that Catholic domga has no value as an argument.

If you are incapable of seeing the difference, i can’t say that i am confident in your cognitive ability to discern whether or not God exists. How embarassing that you opened this thread. Don’t you feel embarrassed?

No, I do not. However, you managed to work yourself into the group of people, whose posts will now go unread. This post is a final courtesy.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No, I do not. However, you managed to work yourself into the group of people, whose posts will now go unread. This post is a final courtesy.

The fact is, you would have had to have seen my irrefutable arguments in my other post before you got to the post which now supposedly causes you to hold the current attitude towards the labour of reading my posts in general. Thus it is not surprising, given that my arguments are logically irrefutable, that you now wish to ignore me. I don’t blame you for seeking an excuse to avoid facing the irrefutable reality of them. LOL.

 

[Anselm33]

Yes. Mathematics, and within it: “set theory” is the ultimate abstraction.

I’m not sure, not having read previous posts, (it’s all too boring and sophomoric), what you mean by the quoted comment. Are you saying mathematics (i.e. set theory) is the only abstract truth? (I would disagree, pointing out various paradoxes that can be invoked using set theory, the most famous of which is Russell’s, the set of all sets that don’t contain themselves.) Please elucidate and don’t require me to read all the previous posts.

 

[DPMartin]

All the alleged “proofs” for God’s existence must start with the physical world, and attempt to prove that the materialistic worldview presents some problems. First, we have to clarify that the materialistic worldview does not deny the existence of non-material entites, which are concepts, ideas and abstractions. But the existence of concepts is different from physical, ontological existence, and the two should not be confused.

Now, the attempted refutation of the materialistic view must start from the physical world. It would be a fallacy to assume a-priori that non-physical existence (apart from the concepts) is even defined. This should be the successful endpoint of a proof - eagerly awaited. It cannot be assumed as one of the premises - that would be the fallacy of begging the question. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

Next, the properly formed proof must avoid the fallacy of the stolen concept. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea) Examples are the incorrect assumptions of “time before the universe”, “place outside the universe”, “causation applied for the universe”, and so on. None of these concepts are defined for the universe, they are only defined within the universe.

Furthermore, the proper proof must avoid the fallacy of composition. The proof cannot arbitrarily generalize form the particular to the whole. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition)

I have never seen an argument which did not contain one or more of these fallacies. I wonder if there is one, which does not. If you think you have one, present it. But, please think it over first. It is fruitless to spend time on presenting yet another argument which fails because it depends on these fallacies.

R Daneel

This may not be what you are looking for, but I would suggest that it starts with the infallible existence of Life. And the source thereof. The necessity that in order for Life to be in the physical requires instruction to succeed in living otherwise the life within the physical discontinues it’s presence therein.

I believe the basis for the argument for the existence or proof of the Living God is Life. I believe that the missing of the mark on this one is that we think to see proof of God in what He created. And if you look at the earth and all around you, you might see that creation is designed to accommodate the presence of Life therein where He has chosen Life to be.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not sure, not having read previous posts, (it’s all too boring and sophomoric), what you mean by the quoted comment. Are you saying mathematics (i.e. set theory) is the only abstract truth? (I would disagree, pointing out various paradoxes that can be invoked using set theory, the most famous of which is Russell’s, the set of all sets that don’t contain themselves.) Please elucidate and don’t require me to read all the previous posts.

Sure thing. No, of course I don’t say that set theory is the “only” abstract truth, And yes, I am well aware of the Ruussell paradox.

However, set theory is a wondeful tool to examine a collection, and its constituent parts. I agree with John Damian, who said that the existence of the parts is a necessary condition for the existence of the collection. The point is that we are talking about some attribute of the elements, and the same attribute pertaining to the collection.

One simple example. A floor is composed of whire, square tiles. So each element (tile) has two attributes: “white” as the color, and “square” as the shape. Now, let’s examine the generalization from the elements to the whole. The first proposition is: “all the tiles are white, therefore the whole floor is white”. Here the generalization is successful. The property of “white” can be generalized from the particular to whole. The second proposition: “all the tiles are square, therefore the whole floor is square”. This does not follow. The whole floor may be also sqaure, but it may also be an oblong.

This example shows that the automatic generalization from the particular to the whole may or may not be correct. And to assume this automatic generalization would be the fallacy of composition.

In the “first cause” type of arguments, the proponents assume that the property of “being caused” can be generalized from the individual objects (or events) to the whole Universe. The fact is that the property of “being caused” may not even be defined for the collection. Consider a simple set, which is composed of two elements: an apple and a poem. About the apple we can say that it was “caused” by the apple tree. The poem can be said that it was caused by the writer. But for the set of {apple, poem} we cannot meaningfully state that the set itself is “caused”.

There is also another problem with the “first cause” type of arguments. The proponents assume that every object and event within the universe has the attribute of “being caused”, and they say that without any justification. But this is a secondary error. Even if we could ascertain that every element within the universe does have the property of “being caused”, that property cannot be automatically attributed to the Universe.

Is this what you were looking for?

 

[R_Daneel]

This may not be what you are looking for, but I would suggest that it starts with the infallible existence of Life. And the source thereof. The necessity that in order for Life to be in the physical requires instruction to succeed in living otherwise the life within the physical discontinues it’s presence therein.

Well, this argument definitely avoids the mentioned fallacies. The trouble is that you view “life” as something that needs some “non-physical” justification for its existence. Life is notoriously hard to define. The best definition is “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. But there is no clearcut line between the “living” and “inanimate” objects. Some biologists consider viruses as “living organisms”, others do not. Crystallic structures have some properties, we usually consider as properties of “living” organisms - namely they grow, and “consume” external material into themselves. Yet, we do not consider chrystals to be “living organisms”. The truth is that the line between “living” and “inanimate” organisms is simply a matter of more of less subjective choice.

I believe the basis for the argument for the existence or proof of the Living God is Life. I believe that the missing of the mark on this one is that we think to see proof of God in what He created. And if you look at the earth and all around you, you might see that creation is designed to accommodate the presence of Life therein where He has chosen Life to be.

I do not agree that there is any sign of “design” when I look at “life”. As a matter of fact, when you look at living creatures, you can see very “useful” properties which a good designer would incorporate into many species. And we can see horribly misguided features, too, which no good designer would incorporate into its “handwork”. I don’t think there is a need to go into details about these.

 

[Anselm33]

There is also another problem with the “first cause” type of arguments. The proponents assume that every object and event within

Yes, and thank you again.

 

[Spirithound]

So you are saying that the Catholic faith is false? Then it seems to me that you are rejecting a principle of the Catholic faith. It says in the Catechism and the bible that Gods existence can be “known” without rational excuse, and that God can be known a-posterior via Gods works.

I think you two are referring to different levels of proof. What you say, MOM2, is certainly true, if one is not working from a strictly materialistic world-view. But there are people who look at God’s works and do not see God.

 

[R_Daneel]

Thank you for setting the argument forth more clearly. I’m not sure I agree. By definition a set is finite. (Hilbert made good arguments about the invalidity of Cantor’s infinite sets, that they lead to paradoxes.)

No, that is not true. Not all infinite sets lead to paradoxes. The Russell’s “set of all sets” certainly does.

So if the universe is finite, it constitutes a set of finite things (albeit a very large set). Therefore there is something outside that set that can be said to cause all those things. In your example, you could point out as the “cause” of your two member set the following: there is a literary farmer, who grew the orchard that contained the tree from which apple was picked and wrote the poem that was the other member of the set.

Well, in some instances it might be possible to assign a “cause” for the set. I did not deny that. Your little explanation only holds if you also stipulate that the farmer was also the author. What if that poem was written a few hundred years ago? The point is that the Universe is a collection of a whole lot of totally unrelated objects. The trouble is that such a “cause” is not automatic in every case. And that is the step which is neglected by the proponents of the argument.

Yes, and thank you again.

You are most welcome.

 

[Gogetters1]

God is a lie but pedobear on the other hand…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

God is a lie but pedobear on the other hand…

Posting this material is **unacceptable.
**
God bless and peace be with you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I feel sick

I take back what I said. I am glad that this person is now banned. Can’t the moderators remove this junk?

 

[Anselm33]

I apologize; I didn’t read your reply carefully enough the first time. (ADD old person)

One simple example. A floor is composed of whire, square tiles. So each element (tile) has two attributes: “white” as the color, and “square” as the shape. Now, let’s examine the generalization from the elements to the whole. The first proposition is: "all the tiles are white, therefore

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think you two are referring to different levels of proof…

What do you mean?

But there are people who look at God’s works and do not see God.

Why?.

 

[Anselm33]

No, that is not true. Not all infinite sets lead to paradoxes. The Russell’s “set of all sets” certainly does

 

[MrAkirafication]

Got is a Lie!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Got is a Lie!

I wouldn’t trust somebody who can’t spell a simple word like God to know what a lie is.

You must be a very unhappy person.