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

Myksyk

Presumably another flawless example of that wonderful programme, the Postmodern Text Generator.

Typedef

Every truth leads to another one.

False ! Therefore argument is completely nullified.

Please prove this, before progressing your proposition.

robindch

Briefly, Daniel:

==================================

> Every truth leads to another one.

A. Please define 'truth' and 'leads'. This statement, as it stands, is meaningless, even assuming the common (and useless, in this context) meaning for both words.

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

B. Come again? Even assuming a general meaning for proposition (1), whatever its specific meaning is, you cannot conclude that an infinite chain of 'truths' reaches a 'conclusion' (which you can't reach, by your own definition, since you declare it, for some reason, to be 'unattainable').

Example of [countable?] infinite chain of reasoning which produces nothing:

(1) This sentence is true, therefore you can proceed to conclusion (2)
(2) This sentence is true, therefore you can proceed to conclusion (1)

C. BTW, do you refer to countable or uncountable infinities? Why?

D. Why [assuming common, rather than precise, context meanings] does an infinite chain of reasoning produce something called 'God'? (E) This bald statement is so silly, I can't even call it 'wrong', since that assumes that the statement has some logical value.

> By stating a single true proposition [...]

E. This appears to be an attempt to induce the existence of God, assuming a broken pile of inductive logic. <sigh>

> 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.

F. I'm getting bored :rolleyes: . This statement reads: 'God doesn't exist, therefore, by my reasoning, God exists'. Since you begin with one fact, then prove the opposite by your reasoning, therefore your reasoning is wrong. See a book on basic logic, or perhaps Douglas Adams who had God argue the opposite in HHGTTG.

I couldn't be bothered klutzing the point (5) since I can't fathom what the point is (though it seems to be saying that 'even if (4) is false, it's correct anyway', or something similar).

==================================

Anyway, who bothers composing such ludicrously silly nonsense?

- robin (assuming, rather too hopefully methinks, that irichc isn't just out for a troll)

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

OfflerCrocGod

irichc wrote:

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.

Since when does god equal the truth? I didn't get that memo this morning.

Myksyk

It doesn't need a further explanation.

A "further" explanation? Do you think you've offered any explanation? I'm inclined to think this is a troll ... worse, a boring troll.

robindch

Daniel -

I don't want to sound too rude, but you have not answered any of the questions I asked in my first reply. Though you've lengthened the text you've written, you've not done much else, and your second posting is as full of glaring non-sequiturs and improbably wild leaps of semi-logic and magical thinking as your first.

Dressing arrant rubbish with the language of logical analysis doesn't change the nature of the rubbish, any more than you can declare that God, whatever that is, exists simply because you think it does.

- robin.

MrNuked

1. You already posted this (ahem) thing on the philosophy forum.

2. Surely if there was some intelligence guiding creaton, people like you wouldn't be created.

3. God does not exist.

simu

Yes, this was already posted in the philosophy forum on boards and on many other forums throughout the net - see the end of this thread for more information. It appears that "Daniel" just posts more of this stuff up without replying to the responses it generates.

davros

Thanks for the tip-off.