Re: Logical Proof of God? -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:23:07 12/27/03 Sat
Author: David
Author Host/IP: adsl-67-126-21-140.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net / 67.126.21.140
Subject: Re: Logical Proof of God?
In reply to: Patrick 's message, "Logical Proof of God?" on 01:07:38 06/15/02 Sat

Well, I suppose no one will need this, but I have to intervene at some point with the use of certain postulates this proof is based on. Which, while they may not be false, require some sort of proof. So this is not saying that the proof is necessarily wrong, instead that the proof is not a 'proof'. If he is able to proof these postulates then we can consider it a proof.

The first part comes in #2: He states that histories end is in the present. He then assumes that history is infinite. Since if history is infinite, it cannot end and therefore we have a contradiction. (I know this was generalizing his statement but what really matters is what he says after the contradiction). He then states that since we have a contradiction history cannot be infinite. What he does not mention is another assumption that could be false. That is that history ends in the present. It is just as easy to think of history starting at the present and working its way backwards. In fact, it makes sense given his definition of history, is based on it being before the present time. Therefore history can be infinite. Since he has not proven that histroy is not infinite he cannot use it in his proof.

#3 is another fallacy comming from the ommitance of an assumption. He states that if the universe is infinite the world would be filled with light, because there are an infinite number of stars. Contradiction. Therefore, he states the universe cannot be infinite. My question is this: surely it is possible to have an infinite universe with only a finite number of stars. You would just have a lot of nothing. So it is possible to have an infinite universe, without having the sky completely convered in starlight.

in #5, even though I am not a mathmetician I must object to the use of Godels proof. Not because I am inherently agnostic, but because it is misused. Godels proof deals not with logical systems in general, but with the logical system of arithmetic. In fact he doesn't even prove that a proof of consistency cannot be given. Merely that it is impossible to create a finite proof of the consistancy ofthe integers that can be mirrored in the arithmetic. Some nonfinite proofs have been given of consitency of the integeres, but they do not satisfy Hilbert's requirements (see the book Godel's Proof, just type it into Google). It is also possible to have a logical system that is consistent. So again we have no way of knowing if 5 is a true statement.

Finally in #8, Patrick uses the fallacy of composition. We cannot know that infinity +1 is the same thing as infinity, or even that 1+infinity is the same as 1+infinity. For instance if we create numbers using the surreal systems we have that omega (or infinity) = {1,2,...| } and omega+1 = {1,2,..., omega| }. (see On Numbers and Games by Conway or The Book of Numbers by Conway)

Again, I'm not saying that this proof is necesarrily false. What I am saying is that this proof does not proove anything because it uses assumptions that are either true or false. In order for it to be a true proof it must be based on assumptions that are entirely true. For instance I could create a proof of the nonexistance of God based on a assumptions that were either true or false.

Thankyou for your time.

P.S. please ignore the spelling or grammar problems. I did not feel like taking the time to fix them, because lets face it: I don't really care if I convinced anyone about this.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: objections answered -- Patrick, 17:10:31 04/11/04 Sun