Argument 18: God Does Not Exist And Logic Proves It

[positive atheist]

Sure, but we're not dealing with fringe views here, especially not in the case of physicists.

Dialetheism is a fringe view. Why is it that when a xtian makes an argument what is said is taken at face value, but when an atheist makes an argument, he suddenly has to answer for and explain every possible crazy, fringe interpretation of the argument? If I were to explain dialetheism will you then require me to explain this argument on the level of quantum mechanics. How about psychotics locked in a mental hospital. They would take a different view of this argument than the standard face value one, do I have to explain away their view also? By the way if dialetheism is true and my argument is false then xtianity comes crashing to the ground because all of its truths and their negations are all true.

That may be, but your first premise makes false claims about what is self-evident to human beings simpliciter.

As it goes, I don't know what your first premise is even doing in your argument (which is formally invalid anyway). You introduce the notion of the laws of logic being self-evident, then never mention it again.

I have no burden whatsoever to explain any of the points you have made. Nor will I be. You are attempting to bring all kinds of fringe, ideas that almost no one believes in, into the argument, and suggesting if I cannot explain my argument in terms of your fringe unproven views that almost no one believes in, then my argument is false. The burden is on you to prove I need to explain my argument in terms of barely known, almost entirely disbelieved ideas. Dialetheism is on the outer limits of philosophy and if you think I have a burden to explain my arguments in terms of dialetheism, you make that argument. Where is your evidence that dialetheism is a very widely accepted unquestioned truth of philosophy or logic? Otherwise you are simply bringing unimportant extraneous ideas into the argument in an attempt to lead it astray.

Even if that's true (and I've no reason to think it is), so what?

You have no reason to think xtians believe god created everything?? Are you serious? This is one of the most common beliefs of all xtianity:
Got Questions

“One of the foundational truths of the Bible is that God is the Creator of all that is…..When we say that God is the Creator, we mean that He is truly creative, in a category all by Himself…….”

Note it says that the idea that god created all that is is a FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH of xtianity. You claim "I have no reason to think it is so". So you are admitting you have no reason to believe in a foundational truth of xtianity. Why anyone believe anything you say?

The Christian can just reply 'gosh, you have a point: the laws of logic weren't created by God and aren't contingent upon him after all'. We're a long way here from "God Does Not Exist And Logic Proves It", no?

If xtians want to admit that then they should. That is openly admitting the xtian god does not exist. If it is shown, as it is in this argument, that god cannot have created logic, then any god that is said to have created logic does not exist.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Because from P6 follows the conclusion "any God said to obtain such a property cannot exist." (including the xtian god).

Then we agree. There is no such thing as the "xtian god."

 

[positive atheist]

No human logic is infallible. The point for me, and which is admitted, is that you are not infallible, consequently not omniscient nor eternal and therefore your capacity to declare you have disproved the existance of God using logic seems a little more than unreasonable.

Just because human knowledge is not infallible that is not a sufficient reason to doubt all human knowledge. You doubt some specific knowledge when you have a specific reason to doubt it. I do not doubt this argument.

To me it's actually your faith in your applied logic that convinces you there is no God but then since no logic is infallible your faith in it is not empirically proved, either for or against.

But infallibility is not a reason to doubt any specific piece of knowledge.

Now, all this I've written is with all due respect to you pa

I respect that but there is really no need to say it. This is an argument. We disagree. Its no big deal. I'm sure its not a personal thing. I would be quite surprised if you agreed with me.

I pray you know I respect you

I do know that. I respect you.

even though we are on opposite ends of God.

As I've said before, my best friend is a devout catholic. I get along with him fine. I get along with xtians every day. No problem. (Well, maybe sometimes annoying but overall no problem)

 

[Stephen]

If you can explain how a proposition and its negation can both be true you have a point. If you cannot then P5 is true because if god exists the laws of logic are not logically necessary, and P6 points out an absurdity that follows from that, that god can do something that cannot be done. Thus no such god can exist.

Let's see if I understand your logical contraption clearly:

1. You posit that God can create a universe where the principal laws of logic are different from our own
2. I have to explain how a proposition and its negation can both be true in that universe in order to have a point.

Here's the explanation of how: The principal laws of logic in the other universe are different.

 

[Lucian]

Dialetheism is a fringe view.

No, it isn't.

Why is it that when a xtian makes an argument what is said is taken at face value, but when an atheist makes an argument, he suddenly has to answer for and explain every possible crazy, fringe interpretation of the argument? If I were to explain dialetheism will you then require me to explain this argument on the level of quantum mechanics. How about psychotics locked in a mental hospital. They would take a different view of this argument than the standard face value one, do I have to explain away their view also? By the way if dialetheism is true and my argument is false then xtianity comes crashing to the ground because all of its truths and their negations are all true.

This is difficult to follow. As a reminder, I've cited some philosophers' endorsement of dialetheism, and alluded to many more physicists' endorsement of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, as evidence that your first premise ("P1. The principal laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, law of excluded middle, transitive laws, are self-evident to human beings") is false.

Note that dialetheism is not the view that all propositions are true.

I have no burden whatsoever to explain any of the points you have made. Nor will I be.

If you aren't prepared to respond to reasoned criticisms of arguments you make, perhaps discussion fora aren't for you.

You have no reason to think xtians believe god created everything?? Are you serious? This is one of the most common beliefs of all xtianity:
Got Questions

Rather, I've no reason to think that all "Christians believe God created everything, all things visible and invisible, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God".

If xtians want to admit that then they should. That is openly admitting the xtian god does not exist.

I don't see how.

If it is shown, as it is in this argument, that god cannot have created logic, then any god that is said to have created logic does not exist.

It isn't shown in your argument, since your argument is, at the very least, invalid and contains a premise (namely, your first) that doesn't explicitly connect with any other part of it.

But even if it's true that "[if] god cannot have created logic, then any god that is said to have created logic does not exist", so what? The theist simply makes a minor revision to their theology, and continues merrily on their way.

 

[5wize]

P1. The principal laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, law of excluded middle, transitive laws, are self-evident to human beings.
P2. Christians believe God created everything, all things visible and invisible, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.
P3. If something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary — it is contingent on God.
P4. If principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary.
P5. If principles of logic are not logically necessary, then God could have arranged matters such that the principal laws of logic were different.
P6. God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that China is larger than New Zealand and China is not larger than New Zealand?
C. Hence logic is not dependent on God, and any God said to obtain such a property cannot exist.

I’m not following that if p4 is correct - that logic is contingent, how come p6 would be absurd? A lack of absurdity is not necessary given p4.

The syllogism would be:
P1. If something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary — it is contingent on God.
P2. If principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary.
P3. A lack of absurdity is a by-product our current principles of logic.
C. Given P2 and P3.... we see our current principles of logic, and thus their by-products such as a lack of absurdity, are not necessary.

 

[positive atheist]

Let's see if I understand your logical contraption clearly:

It is a sound and valid argument that proves the xtian god does not exist.

Here's the explanation of how: The principal laws of logic in the other universe are different.

Xtians don't believe god created any other universes. Furthermore it is questionable because laws of logic don't seem to be location dependent. If the law on non-contradiction were false in some other universe how could it be true in our universe?

1. You posit that God can create a universe where the principal laws of logic are different from our own
2. I have to explain how a proposition and its negation can both be true in that universe in order to have a point.

I hate to state my arguments in "other words" (because then people argue against the summary not the argument) so the argument is in post #1. That is what I am defending. There exists a self-evident apperception of logical laws upon which our present experience and ability to know the truth arises. Xtians claim these logical laws are contingent on god, thus not necessary, thus could be different. So if god exists knowledge is impossible and it cannot be known that god exists. (P6). Thus any god said to be the creator of logic cannot exist thus the xtian god does not exist.

 

[positive atheist]

No, it isn't.

This is difficult to follow. As a reminder, I've cited some philosophers' endorsement of dialetheism, and alluded to many more physicists' endorsement of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, as evidence that your first premise ("P1. The principal laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, law of excluded middle, transitive laws, are self-evident to human beings") is false.

Note that dialetheism is not the view that all propositions are true.

If you aren't prepared to respond to reasoned criticisms of arguments you make, perhaps discussion fora aren't for you.

Rather, I've no reason to think that all "Christians believe God created everything, all things visible and invisible, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God".

I don't see how.

It isn't shown in your argument, since your argument is, at the very least, invalid and contains a premise (namely, your first) that doesn't explicitly connect with any other part of it.

But even if it's true that "[if] god cannot have created logic, then any god that is said to have created logic does not exist", so what? The theist simply makes a minor revision to their theology, and continues merrily on their way.

I am not going to take on a burden of proof that is not imposed on xtians. I have never heard a xtian explain an argument that god exists in terms of dialetheism. I have never heard a xtian explain an argument that god exists in terms of quantum mechanics. I have never heard anyone say if a xtian cannot explain their beliefs and arguments in terms of dialetheism and quantum mechanics that thus their arguments are false. No offense to anyone here, atheist or christian, but I'd guess nearly 100% of the people have never heard of dialetheism because it is an esoteric, unproven, fringe idea in philosophy. If you think you can make something of this I invite you to do it. Write 10 long posts explaining how dialetheism and quantum mechanics proves this argument wrong. I will not be rebutting it. I don't think anyone will be convinced nor even care. No one will even take the time to read it. Go ahead and do it.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I am not going to take on a burden of proof that is not imposed on xtians. I have never heard a xtian explain an argument that god exists in terms of dialetheism. I have never heard a xtian explain an argument that god exists in terms of quantum mechanics. I have never heard anyone say if a xtian cannot ...........

These "xtians," about whom you're constantly bitching can't seem to explain anything. Assuming they are not figures of your imagination, if you get the chance ask one of them what the weather is like on planet x. Just curious.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

.......... thus the xtian god does not exist.

I've got a much easier path to that conclusion:

1. xtians do not exist.
C:Therefore the xtian god does not exist.

 

[Theophilos]

P1. The principal laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, law of excluded middle, transitive laws, are self-evident to human beings.

Physics itself contradicts the laws of logic stated in point 1.

Quantum mechanics shows that light simultaneously exists as both a particle and a wave. Clouds of virtual particles come in and out of existence. At its most basic level, the world is beyond human logic.

. . . God is light . . . 1 John 1:5

For Thou art God ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same . . .--Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom

 

[Gus Bovona]

Quantum mechanics shows that light simultaneously exists as both a particle and a wave.

That’s not exactly true. Other interpretations of QM say that light looks like or behaves like a particle when we do this or look at it this way, and it looks like or behaves like a wave when we look at it that way or do that. That interpretation survives Occam’s razor better.

 

[CrowCross]

P6. God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time.

That's a strange point to bring up....the atheist, even negative atheist while at the same time positive atheist want to tell us the "stuff" that made up the "Big Bang" self created from absolutely nothing. They believe the "stuff" existed and didn't exist at the same time.

If you can explain how a proposition and its negation can both be true you have a point.

Perhaps you can explain it....the truth is it can't be true...yet you need it to be true. Then again for stuff to come from nothing...ex-nihilo...there had to be a creator being that never had a beginning and always was and never wasn't.

Your turn.

 

[ferengi]

P3. If something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary — it is contingent on God.

Your evidence is?

C. Hence logic is not dependent on God, and any God said to obtain such a property cannot exist.

Non-sequitur.

 

[ferengi]

I agree. A God that is supposed to create logic can't exist.

prove it

 

[ferengi]

It is a sound and valid argument that proves the xtian god does not exist.

Prove it

 

[Stephen]

It is a sound and valid argument that proves the xtian god does not exist.

I suppose in some other universe it is.

Xtians don't believe god created any other universes. Furthermore it is questionable because laws of logic don't seem to be location dependent. If the law on non-contradiction were false in some other universe how could it be true in our universe?

I don't know about these Xtian characters, but Christians (and Jews) don't as a rule negate the existence of other universes, in fact many of them think the "new creation" might be another universe.

What observations of other universes do you have that indicate the laws of logic are the same there as they are in this universe? If the answer is none, then you are speculating in leiu of knowledge.

But these are side claims in relation to the logical contraption.

I hate to state my arguments in "other words" (because then people argue against the summary not the argument) so the argument is in post #1. That is what I am defending. There exists a self-evident apperception of logical laws upon which our present experience and ability to know the truth arises. Xtians claim these logical laws are contingent on god, thus not necessary, thus could be different. So if god exists knowledge is impossible and it cannot be known that god exists. (P6). Thus any god said to be the creator of logic cannot exist thus the xtian god does not exist.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. How is knowledge impossible based on the premise? If logical laws are different in another universe, how does that preclude humans obtaining knowledge in this universe?

 

[Torin]

@positive atheist, you should read up on Ayn Rand's concept of the "primacy of existence."

It's sad that you are dismissive of her, given how often you say things that parallel her thought.

 

[Lucian]

I am not going to take on a burden of proof that is not imposed on xtians. I have never heard a xtian explain an argument that god exists in terms of dialetheism. I have never heard a xtian explain an argument that god exists in terms of quantum mechanics. I have never heard anyone say if a xtian cannot explain their beliefs and arguments in terms of dialetheism and quantum mechanics that thus their arguments are false. No offense to anyone here, atheist or christian, but I'd guess nearly 100% of the people have never heard of dialetheism because it is an esoteric, unproven, fringe idea in philosophy. If you think you can make something of this I invite you to do it. Write 10 long posts explaining how dialetheism and quantum mechanics proves this argument wrong. I will not be rebutting it. I don't think anyone will be convinced nor even care. No one will even take the time to read it. Go ahead and do it.

I'm not asking you to take on a burden of proof. Rather, I've cited some philosophers' endorsement of dialetheism (your characterisation of which is inaccurate), and alluded to many more physicists' endorsement of certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, as evidence that your first premise ("P1. The principal laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, law of excluded middle, transitive laws, are self-evident to human beings") is false.

Beyond that, one could perhaps consider Eastern philosophy and religion as thought systems in which these 'laws' might not be as self-evident as they are to you. Similarly, experimental philosophy has taught us to be careful about generalising about the prevalence of allegedly 'self-evident' beliefs.

Of course, that's not the only problem with which you've to contend, given that e.g. your argument is structurally incoherent.

 

[positive atheist]

I’m not following that if p4 is correct - that logic is contingent, how come p6 would be absurd? A lack of absurdity is not necessary given p4.

If logic is contingent on god then logic is not necessary and then logic could have been different from what it is. But this contradicts it being self evidently true. How could the transitive laws not be true? No one can see how that could be. Thus if god exists, christians have no foundation for logic and thus no basis on which to form an argument that god exists. The foundation of logic presupposes atheism is true.

I have said many times I welcome other atheists to create affirmative arguments. I urge you to do it. If you can write a better version of this argument then do it and either start a new thread or wait until this one is over and post yours in a new thread. Their arguments and beliefs are flimsy. Why should we wait around to defend atheism? Let's take the fight to them and force them to defend their beliefs. As we are already seeing in this thread, when their beliefs are challenged they suddenly want to discuss everything under the sun other than their beliefs. I welcome you to do it. If you can write a better argument than mine I will adopt it. Start a new thread.