An Argument for the existence of God.

Exactly. The OP is putting far to much emphasis on the fact that his argument is logically sound. I mean, it's just modus ponens, or the contrapositive of it. Of course it's logically sound. But saying

if (~p) then (~q)
~(~q)
hence ~(~p)

is such a non illuminating series of strings it's basically just mechanical. And if you stick to symbolic logic then we're done.

But as soon as you start replacing p and q with physical things or values you have to do a lot more work. And the consensus here is right, as was Russell: making morality contingent upon a god requires the supposition that god exists, something you haven't proven by the end of the first string. This is one of the first things they showed us in first year philosophy, that you have to be careful to avoid infinite regress or begging the question and it can get really complicated if you have multiple contingencies to figure out if you're doing it or not. But this wouldn't even appear on the test.

The argument falls to pieces the moment it assumes that which it's trying to prove. You need a little sidebar which demonstrates that the first string is necessarily true and it has to do it without assuming it already is, which means you're going to have to switch to induction, meaning even the best attempt will allow for absolutely correct premises which can still produce an incorrect conclusion.

That's why nobody tries to argue this anymore. You keep having to plut an asterisk on as a reminder that this bit needs a separate proof. And as soon as you get anywhere you find you need another asterisk.

 

As I was reveiwing the replies, I noticed the logical expressions rendered by a member attempting to debunk a claim, so I thought I would do something I failed to do in my other posts concerning the KCA. That is provide both the classical form and logical form of the KCA for the existence of God. As follows;

The three (simple)* main premise’s.
* (simple) there are expanded versions as well.

a...Whatever begins to exist requires a cause
b...The universe began to exist
c.....Therefore, the universe requires a cause (modus ponens via a and b)

Logical form, (please excuse the unconventional method of writing it) ;

So, if p is true, then q is true. p is true, so q is true.

That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. It’s my favorite philosophical evidence that supports the existence of God and a personal God; the latter arrived at by applying additional complexity along with similar logical applications.

That said, I wish the KCA was my invention, however the famous (infamous if you happen to be atheist or God denier apologists ha ha,) Kalam Cosmological Argument has been around even longer than I, hundreds of years, maybe a thousand or more (my memory fails me). It also has a fascinating history. The modern form was rendered by William Craig PhD ThD the premier Christian apologist and philosopher. The KCA is valid because it satisfies all the requirements for a modus ponens inference aka logic disjunctive syllogism aka a modus tollendo, or for short the premises form a logical syllogism ha ha.

Propositional logic is not my strong forte and I would rather discuss the KCA in general terms instead of the technical aspects of logic and Philosophy etc. Lastly there are other CA/OA’s but the KCA has been challenged for hundreds of years, but never defeated. There was a reason Holmes always got his man, he used the same type of argument (deductive) to expose the perp! This time the perp we have exposed is God himself.

reva

 

"Objective moral values and duties" are subjective and wide open to interpretation. I have known some Atheist with more moral fiber than many so called Christians I have also met. Satanist have morals and values... its just most of us do not agree with their morals or values. Atheist have morals and values... you can be a good kind and caring person without God. Mono and polytheists do not have a monopoly on morals and values.

Your premise does not prove your conclusion. Its like saying;

Premise 1) If Santa does not exist, then the wrapped gift labeled "From Santa" are actually a gift from my parents.

Premise 2) Santa does exist so the present was from him.

Conclusion Therefore, Santa exists.

Go ahead and believe in God... I do. But trying to prove that there is a God is an exercise in futility. It is a matter of faith that is unique to each individual. Talk to 10 Christians on their belief in God and you will get 10 differing views.

 

That's correct. His premise 1 is actually his opinion 1.

 

Actually, simple mathematics proves the existance of God.

 

I am not aware of a math theory etc as an argument that proves or lends evidence for the existence of God. Please expand? When an 'atheist'* or a 'skeptic'* asks why, other than faith that I believe in God I tell him the KCA is one evidence. Another is the existence of code in nature, such as DNA. Where does the information come from? Yes there are approximations** to DNA however that is why I say there is evidence instead of proof that God exists. In addition there are no approximations that come close to equaling DNA in complexity or function. Then there is why does the clumpy universe exist (as in stars ie matter). According to calculations arrived at by using known variables that are almost universally accepted the universe should by overwhelming probabilities be smooth energy as in plasma etc instead of matter.

There have been attempts to explain why stars galaxies and planets etc exist, and how they formed having no apparent mechanisms to do so. There have been theories forwarded that suggest small perturbations of gravity in the very early universe caused regions of spacetime to ‘contract’ accumulating enough energy that is 'cool' and 'dense' enough to form what we call atoms and the building blocks of matter, but they have serious, so serious I would say fatal problems.

Then there is the big bang itself. Most of the atheist generated theories that attempt to debunk the one universe 'creation event' ***ie the universe beginning to exist, even those generated by genius level atheists like Stephen Hawking lack empirical evidence and the math he and other atheist physicists use is fraught with imaginary numbers and fabricated mathematical mechanisms plugged in to make their eternally cyclical universes work. (cyclical meaning the universe(s) needing no reason to begin having existed 'forever').

There are many other valid reasonable evidences for God’s existence****, I have only mentioned three or four of my favorite most probable arguments and theories.

Footnotes;

*Skeptic or Atheist in this reply means anyone that does not believe that a creator God is possible or probable, even though I selected the Christian religion to define what I believe is God it means any entity that possesses the attributes commonly assigned to God.

** approximations to DNA mean RNA and other molecules, however as I said none have the attributes of DNA.

*** The creation event is another phrase for when the big bang banged etc.

**** Other evidences are Ontological arguments for the existence of God such as Kurt Godels, Godel was according to some scientific historians Einstein’s equal, he helped Einstein flesh out some of his most famous theories. The fine tuning argument. Take a chance and Google ‘evidences for the existence of God’ after separating the quack theories from the valid ones you may be surprised. Yes well meaning Christian apologists are like well meaning lay people 'want to be scientists' and create theories that lack validity.

reva

 

The first part is really why I tend to believe in a god of some kind, depending on how the word is defined.

But when you extrapolate it into being a personal God, that is where I think the evidence completely falls apart and we enter into the land of conjecture and pure faith.

 

Its not a theory. The idea that there is no God is a "Statistical Impossibility".

A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1X10^-50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible, the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.

The probablity that everything needed to create life on earth accidentally, from the sun being the right size, the tilt of the earth for seasons, the chemical & material make-up of the earth & atmosphere.... ...and then that acids would accidentally come together to spark life from where there was no life (whichh itself seems impossible) and that it would evolve into humans.... ....although not truly impossible, the probability is so low that all these things could happen together that is not rational or reasonable to think that it did.

The only other possibility is tthe existance of a Creator.

 

Is it OK to necro 18 month old threads?

At any rate, lets just say that I dont accept as definite, any of the premises either of the OP or of the KCA.

 

It's funny because God himself is a Statistical Impossibility. Something can't come from nothing remember? Of course we now know nothing never really was so there's no need for a creator in the first place but whatever. The only reason everything we see around us is exactly as it needs to be in order for us to be here is because we are here. If it wasn't the way it needs to be we wouldn't know, because we wouldn't be here.

If I'm given the answer four there is nothing strange or impossible about the problem being 2 + 2.

 

And more presumptions coming into the picture by the nay-sayers.

What about the myriad variations of mathematical computations that would also result in the answer "4"? Your comment could indicate that you are not too prone toward examining all the possibilities.

 

My comment indicates that there is no need to examine all the possible ways to get to four.

In fact the point of the post I responded to was that there could be only one possibility.

And they were right, there is only one possibility for us to be here as we are which is why everything is as it is.

Despite peoples inability to understand that, God is still unnecessary.

 

I got it now.... you are making the age old plea of "I think therefore I am" philosophy.
"Often, however, circular reasoning is more subtle than this: it depends on an assumption not stated but assumed. Consider the famous argument of the French philosopher, René Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." Descartes has begged the question here, because when he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three hundred years later. "

 

There is a very subtle mathematical argument for the existence and omnipotence of God, it is Arrow's theorem that states that any consistent election corresponds in fact to the choice of a unique person. This person is of course God.

 

I suppose this depends on how you define "moral values and duties".
If you mean something like "accepted standards of conduct by which we behave", then I disagree completely with 'Premise 1'.

All animals have accepted standards of conduct within their schools/herds/packs/societies. These are behaviors that are beneficial to the survival of the species. Those who do not conform are ostracised from the group, decreasing their ability to propagate the behavior in the next generation.

 

Not really. It depends solely upon a correlation between the existence of gods and moral values and duties. Correlations of which none can ever be shown to exist, of course.

 

I see no reason to accept #1 as being true. In fact, if God exist, I don't see how objective moral truths could exist at all. God could rewrite any moral truths that he wishes.

 

The ideals of morality are a function of quality consciousness. Consciousness is the source of all existence, even affecting subatomic characteristics at the quantum mechanics level. Thus consciousness is universal, since it is a personal internal agent as well as an external/material agent. Its external role is of course very discreet and is inferred based on phenomena such as the double slit experiment.

Morality/immorality is just another sample of the multitude of dualities that make up existence, e.g, hot/cold, positive/negative, wave/particle.

 

If "God" exists, why does it need to be unique and male?

 

I agree with you, but some religious folks seem to believe the definitions of "morals, values and duties" include "from God".
Clearly, if someone defines them as being from God, they are talking about something entirely different to our understanding of these terms.

 

Indeed, and that renders the argument meaningless. If morality is defined as being from a god, then it merely states that a god exists if a god exists. Silly and meaningless but nonetheless the starting point of all supernatural beliefs.

 

Premise 1) If GREAT CTHULU does not exist, then objective moral values and dutites do not exist.

Premise 2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Conclusion Therefore, GREAT CTHULU exists.

There same argument, different deity force therefore the same conclusion. Its not a good argument.

Morality and Duty is subjective it changes due to ones society in Aztec society human blood sacrifice was fine, in our society not, as one extreme example.

 

The premise is suspect because God's existence is an uncertainty, even though there are good ways of exploring the prospects of him existing in some form or another. Anyway, primitive tribes developed standards of conduct as part of cooperative efforts toward group survival and perpetuation. They did so regardless of any presence or lack of supernatural beliefs.

Morals can be linked to the Creator indirectly. If the driving force of creation is progressive evolution and the goal is reduction of entropy (via increased complexity and increased quality of consciousness), then morality favors positive growth in step with the overall plan, whereas immorality favors disorder and retarding of progress.

 

.
It seems the thread author is banned? He proposed an impeccable logically valid argument for the existence of God dependent on the premises validity. The inference is inescapable. Sorry I only read the first page so if I repeat another members concerns its by accident.

Note this series of philosophical argument, statements, and various inference(s) from this set of premises are common advanced study. I recognize the material from the last years of study at seminary so I can say with authority and with sources if need be that some of the material in the OT is from the web or text book.

So the first premise is so obvious I hope I do not have to explain it. One.... "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and dutites do not exist." That means an entity that is infallible can not be mistaken in it’s claim. So by Gods infallibility Gods assessment is by default objective. (Moral judgment). It has to be, so moral judgments are objective they are not subjective ie to be argued between two fallible entities.

Premises two Premise 2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

I will stop here to determine if there is interest in the thread and/or if there is agreement with my opinion (lol).

reva

 

Please do continue.