An Argument for the Existence of God

[Edric O]

I'm willing to bet, if I did read it, I would think of it as straw-pulling, desperate, unrealistic statements formulated by someone trying to justify his own beliefs by converting others by attempting to appear as superior, so I'll pass for now and save us both some time. I have spring break off next week so I'll probably read it then if I must.

I'm saving this little jewel of a quote, Ace... Expect to see it again the second you call someone else close-minded.

[Egeides]

the argument I presented is highly complicated. I am finally understaning his variant of the anselm argument, and I think its brilliant.

to those laymen in here like myself having a hard time understanding his argument, or don't want to read it thouroughly, here is a very toned down version of it:

existence is greater than non-existence.

1. God is the greatest thing that can be conceived. (Axiom)

2. If God did not exist, something greater than god would exist. (Axiom)

3. But no greater thing than god can be conceived. (Axiom 1, repeated)

4. Because #2 is in contradiction with #1, therefore 2 cannot be true.

If 2 cannot be true, therefore, God must exist.

In other words:

1. Someone who doubts the existence of God at least knows what God is: the greatest thing that can be conceived

2. It is greater to exist outside the mind then just in the mind.

3. Therefore someone who doubts God says that something greater can be thought of than God.

4. This is in contradiction with the definition of God, and therefore cannot be true.

5. Hence God exists.

Even though this is a simplified version of his argument, you STILL have to read over this a few times until it "clicks".

Now, the original argument I posted covers this logic in great detail, and refutes possible rebuttals. Once you understand what I am saying here, you will probably have a better grasp on the original argument.

It is a fascinating read, and utterly brilliant!

Thx for the resume...

Now, I guess it is brilliant, but also false.

The problem, IMHO (very very humble ;)), is that you are posing an hypothesis with implicit links and then pose another hypothesis but this time with different implicit links.

Therefore you can not use conclusions from the second hypothesis in the first hypothesis' implicit environment. You would need to adjust the variables since what is true in a given implicit environment wont be true in another.

Besides, where did you found this article? I'd be curious to see if this guy got answered by someone in scholar magazines and so on...

Silly silly me, bad bad me ;D

[sneezer3]

you can refute the simplefid version to make it easer to understand, but not the complacated one? ::)

Gah kids these days. :P

[emprworm]

o no sneezer, he did not refute it at all!

Therefore you can not use conclusions from the second hypothesis in the first hypothesis' implicit environment. You would need to adjust the variables since what is true in a given implicit environment wont be true in another.

which conclusion is false?

it happens that proofs very frequently use multiple conclusions to derive a conclusion. it is called logical induction. You are completely wrong in saying that one cannot use a conclusion to rule out an induction. The law of non contradiction renders one statement false, and it must be false according to logic. You have not pointed out a flaw my friend Egeides. I totally fail to see where the weakness lies that you speak of. Please specifically explain. which point is wrong- which conclusion is wrong?

existence is greater than non-existence.

1. God is the greatest thing that can be conceived. (Axiom)

2. If God did not exist, something greater than god would exist. (Axiom)

3. But no greater thing than god can be conceived. (Axiom 1, repeated)

4. Because #2 is in contradiction with #1, therefore 2 cannot be true.

If 2 cannot be true, therefore, God must exist.

[Acriku]

One thing that I found when skimming over it, is how is existence greater than non-existence? Existence is existence and non-existence is non-existence, one isn't greater than the other, they are just them. There is no scale to determine which is greater.

Also, if god didn't exist, then how could something be better than the god conceived? Isn't the conceived god the greatest being ever conceived? Is there a being right now that is greater than omnipotence, omniscience, etc? I can't think of one right now...Or are you using the existence greater than non-existence thing again? Well, read above to my thoughts about that. If god didn't exist, then the greatest being of all right now would be the greatest, which it would have always been, it would not be greater than the non-existant god because there is nothing of it to be greater than!

[Caid Ivik]

I can say: nothing exists. Everything you see is just an illusion. Even your own existence is an illusion. Is there a possibility to negate this?

[Acriku]

If you want to convert to hinduism fine...Sure everything can be an illusion, but why delve in the possibilities?

[emprworm]

One thing that I found when skimming over it, is how is existence greater than non-existence? Existence is existence and non-existence is non-existence, one isn't greater than the other, they are just them. There is no scale to determine which is greater.

existence > nonexistence is provable in math.

existence will always be > 0, since it actually exists. Nonexistence will always = 0, since in reality it is nothing.

therefore existence > 0, where existence is always a positive quantity. It is a mathematical certainty.

but not only that, your challenge of existence is bizzarre. i honestly have never read an atheist challenge such an obvious self-evident truth.

it is quite obvious that to exist in reality is greater than existing in concept. Few people would challenge that. Do you not appreciate your existence, Acriku? It is solid logic and agreeable by probably almost everyone except hard core atheists who just want to argue something, even though deep down they whole heartedly agree with it. I know for a fact, 100%, that you prefer to exist over not existing. We are talking about a living being! For any possible intelligent, sentient, living being it is better to exist than not exist. What you just said above about trying to say that existence is not greater than nonexistence is nothing but a smoke screen.

[sneezer3]

I'm no athiest, but how do you know existence is greater then non existence?

In order to know that you would have to not exist. We know its better to exist, but how do you know its greater in math to not exist?

and like you said there both 0

[Caid Ivik]

First main problem should be: how would you define a word "existence"?

I can say 0 isn't non-existing. It has a value, I can say it's one of the most strategic numbers. There are more nihilistic signs, i.e. 0i, or number you will take by dividing 0...

[emprworm]

I'm no athiest, but how do you know existence is greater then non existence?

In order to know that you would have to not exist. We know its better to exist, but how do you know its greater in math to not exist?

and like you said there both 0

another excellent proof that existence > nonexistence

since nonexistence cannot even declare that it is equal to existence, therefore, by default existence > nonexistence.

it is noncontrovertible

[emprworm]

First main problem should be: how would you define a word "existence"?

I can say 0 isn't non-existing. It has a value, I can say it's one of the most strategic numbers. There are more nihilistic signs, i.e. 0i, or number you will take by dividing 0...

we are talking about a living being. its pretty obvious what existence means.

i read earlier that you denied your existence. you said "nothing exists"

well this is impossible to say since you must first exist in order to deny it. You cannot make an existential statement that applies to existence without first existing. It is philosophically impossible.

to actually exist > nonexistence, this is mathematically provable. And to say "i do not exist" is 100% pure fallacy. it is rediculous. No one can deny their existence, because you must exist in order to make the denial.

if this is your basis for refuting the argument: "existence <= nonexistence" then you have a very weak rebuttal.

I'd say that such a weak rebuttal gives the argument an extremely strong case, since its pretty obvious that existence > nonexistence.

some things are so obvious and self evident (like logic > illogic) that they don't even need to be argued, and to do so is a waste of time. this is one of them.

[Caid Ivik]

How do you know I've denied my existence? You just see something what leads you to think it, but there is no proof I really exist.

[emprworm]

i dont know you exist, but i know I exist. self-existence cannot be denied. to make a statement about actual existence that is actually true about that existence....requires existence.

[Caid Ivik]

How do you think YOU have created it?

But then must exist something what made it instead of you... Chaotic.

[emprworm]

lets cut to the chase.

science all comes down to logic and probability. what is the most reasonable conclusion given the evidence and logic?

If faced between 2 choices:

the universe around me exists

the universe around me does not exist

and your soul depends upon you making the right choice....you'd be a total fool to claim the second choice. Sure, you can BELIEVE like a religious person that nothing exists....but that doesn't make you rational- it is still an illogical thing to conclude and is not exercising good scientific principle.

If denying in God means I have to deny existence itself, that would not be a logical thing to do, now would it?

[emprworm]

listen to what you are saying:

1. Either the earth is round

2. or the universe does not exist.

You seem to be choosing #2.

now, you can do that, but I believe it is very foolish and illogical.

I believe #1) The earth is round.

[Caid Ivik]

If the universe does not exist, doesn't exist even this what we write here. Non-existence as in dream.

[Davidu]

It's hard to comprehend non-existance due to the fact that oru minds work in a relative existance.

Caid, you say that all can be non-existant, even the person that says that. Even each of us could be non-existant, and what we see could be a dream.

BUT, in order to for a dream to appear, someone has to dream it, therefore that statement is false: "Everything you see is just an illusion. Even your own existence is an illusion."

In oreder to detect an illusion, something must exist to SEE the illusion. Actually the illusion itself exists - therefore you cannot negate existance.

[Egeides]

"you can refute the simplefid version to make it easer to understand, but not the complacated one?

Gah kids these days."

You're not showing me wrong either... And if the simplified model is correct, then a simplified answer should be. Also, showing others as idiots wont make you right and it is not nice.

o no sneezer, he did not refute it at all!

Therefore you can not use conclusions from the second hypothesis in the first hypothesis' implicit environment. You would need to adjust the variables since what is true in a given implicit environment wont be true in another.

which conclusion is false?

it happens that proofs very frequently use multiple conclusions to derive a conclusion. it is called logical induction. You are completely wrong in saying that one cannot use a conclusion to rule out an induction. The law of non contradiction renders one statement false, and it must be false according to logic. You have not pointed out a flaw my friend Egeides. I totally fail to see where the weakness lies that you speak of. Please specifically explain. which point is wrong- which conclusion is wrong?

existence is greater than non-existence.

1. God is the greatest thing that can be conceived. (Axiom)

2. If God did not exist, something greater than god would exist. (Axiom)

3. But no greater thing than god can be conceived. (Axiom 1, repeated)

4. Because #2 is in contradiction with #1, therefore 2 cannot be true.

If 2 cannot be true, therefore, God must exist.

Ok, let's give it a try...

First, I know that thing about induction and multiple conclusions but I don't see in what it opposes what I wrote.

About the axioms, what I say is that not all your axioms are true in the same implicit conditions. Thus, when you answer to one of your axioms, it can't be extrapolated to be used with other axioms.

This is my hypothesis, it's pretty simple and I'm curious to see where it'd be false.

PS: emprworm, I'm still waiting you,re answer on the source post, about why gvt gave money to Columbian gvt while it was oppressing population when population said gvt was illegitim and so on. And that it knew it was illegitim (while funding it) by seeing all population manifesting and beeing repressed (see source post for details and answering).

[Acriku]

Empr, in math negative numbers exist. Positive numbers exist. Existence would be -2, -3, 5, .56, 0. Zero exists. It's a real number. So, your mathematical proof is bogus. In what way is existence greater than non-existence? There is no substance to non-existence, so how can something with substance be greater than something without substance? Exactly, it can't. It's sort of like comparing oranges to scarves. You can't say which one is greater, because they aren't even in the same category. You can determine which is better, oranges or limes, but not existence and non-existence. Thank you and good night.

[emprworm]

If the universe does not exist, doesn't exist even this what we write here. Non-existence as in dream.

Caid, really that is a very weak argument. it is ludacrious. that is the kind of thing people high on drugs say sitting around going "woah dude, like we don't exist....like ya!"

its not even worth my time. i am not going to sit around and argue the existence of logic. if you actually think you don't exist...well...i cant help you :(.

and to Acriku, nice try, but numbers not a existent things, but ane purely conceptual. what we are talking about is a living being that has quantifiable attributes, which by definition cannot be "negative". This is not apples vs. oranges...this is something vs. nothing!

Something with postivie attributes which is > nothing, and nothing itself, which is = nothing.

and if you are actually going to argue that nonexistence <= existence and use that as your only refutation to the argument, then the argument stands solid.

I don't think you actually believe it, but who knows...people believed aliens were in the hale bopp comet.

if you get cornered in a debate to the poin where you start saying silly things like "existence <= nonexistence" then I consider that a glowing success.

ANYTHING....ANYTHING that exists will be measurable, at least by descriptive attributes....even your negative numbers EXIST as measurements...so they are STILL greater than something that does not exist.

Something > nothing.

Nothing always = 0.

Something that physically exists will always have positive attributes which means it is always > 0

your argument is horrible.

You want to argue that something <= nothing? Well, not with me you wont. its a waste of time, because it is simply incontrovertible. Basically you are making the same rediculous argument that Caid is making. a stoner argument that is grounded in fantasy. Sounds like Zen Buddhism.

The moment someone in a debate starts saying "something <= nothing"....they lost the debate. Something will always...ALWAYS have positive attributes. Nothing is the complete lack of any and all attributes. "LACK OF" IS LESS THAN "MORE OF!" like...duh! It is absolutely without question and beyond argument that something > nothing. It just shows how desperate the person is to hold on to their atheistic views despite logic...even if it means saying crazy things like "something <= nothing". I can almost guarantee you that when the atheist scholar responds to the argument he wont be challenging the notion that 'something > nothing" which is incontrovertible. You simply must deny logic to challenge that. Well, I am satisfied once I heard you say that. So, I have no further need to debate this issue. So go ahead and continue telling us all how "something <= nothing" so I can have some afternoon humor.

[Egeides]

Caid, really that is a very weak argument. it is ludacrious. that is the kind of thing people high on drugs say sitting around going "woah dude, like we don't exist....like ya!"

If questioning if logic = truth and questioning the capacity of human to achieve truth is something that is soooooo much a "weak", "ludacrious", "etc." argument, then it should be easy for you're great person to say what's wrong >:( You're telling him he's idiot and so on but wont question yourself.

its not even worth my time. i am not going to sit around and argue the existence of logic. if you actually think you don't exist...well...i cant help you :(.

You certainly can't since you're not interested, and I doubt he'd ask. And if you are not here to listen to what he has to say, I guess you're the one who isn't worth talking to since you have no intention to listen (as we see here: "you're wrong and it's evident so I wont show why"). It's like talking to a mirror, total lack of respect.

and to Acriku, nice try, but numbers not a existent things, but ane purely conceptual. what we are talking about is a living being that has quantifiable attributes, which by definition cannot be "negative". This is not apples vs. oranges...this is something vs. nothing!

Something with postivie attributes which is > nothing, and nothing itself, which is = nothing.

and if you are actually going to argue that nonexistence <= existence and use that as your only refutation to the argument, then the argument stands solid.

I don't think you actually believe it, but who knows...people believed aliens were in the hale bopp comet.

if you get cornered in a debate to the poin where you start saying silly things like "existence <= nonexistence" then I consider that a glowing success.

ANYTHING....ANYTHING that exists will be measurable, at least by descriptive attributes....even your negative numbers EXIST as measurements...so they are STILL greater than something that does not exist.

Something > nothing.

Nothing always = 0.

Something that physically exists will always have positive attributes which means it is always > 0

your argument is horrible.

You want to argue that something <= nothing? Well, not with me you wont. its a waste of time, because it is simply incontrovertible. Basically you are making the same rediculous argument that Caid is making. a stoner argument that is grounded in fantasy. Sounds like Zen Buddhism.

The moment someone in a debate starts saying "something <= nothing"....they lost the debate. Something will always...ALWAYS have positive attributes. Nothing is the complete lack of any and all attributes. "LACK OF" IS LESS THAN "MORE OF!" like...duh! It is absolutely without question and beyond argument that something > nothing. It just shows how desperate the person is to hold on to their atheistic views despite logic...even if it means saying crazy things like "something <= nothing". I can almost guarantee you that when the atheist scholar responds to the argument he wont be challenging the notion that 'something > nothing" which is incontrovertible. You simply must deny logic to challenge that. Well, I am satisfied once I heard you say that. So, I have no further need to debate this issue. So go ahead and continue telling us all how "something <= nothing" so I can have some afternoon humor.

For the rest, you say to others their arguments are "horrible", that it's "a nice try" (compared to you I guess), that you "can have some afternoon humor" and all the rest. To resume, you compare to yourself that is alot better :O

And of course, you wont answer any of what I wrote since I guess that I'm so desperate and it's useless to answer since I do not have the capacity to understand your great might. I'll have to do without... So I'll answer if I think some others may be interested. I do not think I should argue with someone who is absolutely not interested into talking to me but only to say to himself he did and "triumphed". Too bad :-X

Besides, for someone who studied religions as you say you have, you are pretty agressive. More than many here. But you probably will take this the bad way and not try to get better? Anyway: :-* and have a nice life/day.

[emprworm]

Topic Summary

Posted on: Today at 17:31:06 Posted by: Egeides

If questioning if logic = truth and questioning the capacity of human to achieve truth is something that is soooooo much a "weak", "ludacrious", "etc." argument, then it should be easy for you're great person to say what's wrong

thats right, Egeides. For someone to question logic is a waste of time arguing because its an absurdity. Some things are a complete waste of time arguing. Here is a list of some things that are so obvious that anyone argues them truly needs some serious study in logic.

LACK OF < MORE OF

NOTHING < SOMETHING

LOGIC > ILLOGIC

When you go to college there are classes called "philosophy" that teach you how to think logically. Unfortunately logical thinking is not usually taught at a high school level. As such (myself included when I was in high school) people will make the most absurd statements, not even realizing how irrational they are.

I do not have time to waste on rediculous arguments that violate logic itself.

Saying "logic does not exist" is completely absurd because you have to use logic in order to argue that it doesn't exist. But people still argue against logic anyway. Why do they do this? Because they are simply illogical people in desperate need of learning about the fundamentals of logical thought. I was once in high school and I liked to think how smart I was. I was the type of pseudo-intellectual that would say silly things like "I don't exist" or "there is no such thing as logic". I am utterly embarrassed that I used to think like that. At the time, I could not understand how utterly self-contradictory such reasoning was.

To claim existentially "I don't exist" requires you to first exist before you can make the claim, thereby making such a statement absurd. No one can absolutely deny their existence unless they exist.

"Nothing >= Something" is another such rediculous statement, my time is better spent washing my dirty underwear than arguing that because it is a violation of fundamental logic and math, and I am not going to argue something so basic and elementary.

To claim "Logic doesn't exist" is itself attempting to use logic in order to say it doesn't exist: thereby invalidating itself as another absurd statement.

"There are no truths" is another absurd statement because it is claiming to be true.

i just cannot waste my time arguing such simple and fundamentally basic concepts of logic. All I can say to people who say things like "nothing > something" is that they need to read a book on the basics of logical thinking. I am not going to argue that kind of thing.

Unless people understand and accept the fundamentals of logic, then dialogue is impossible.

[Acriku]

If you are going to tell me that numbers are purely conceptual, which they are, then don't use them in your "mathematical" proof. I was going along with what you were saying.

Again, I say that you cannot compare existence with non-existence - there is nothing to compare existence to! You can't use anything of non-existence to compare to existence, there is no attribute, no description. It's non-existence.