An argument against (the usual concept of) God

[Gottservant]

There is a very obvious proof of God that fits the model requested:

(i) Man exists.
Man does not know everything.
There is something that man does not know.
What is not known must be compensated for.
Someone must compensate for what must be compensated for.
The thing being unknown and compensated for makes the person compensating a god (they must transcend themselves).
(ii) there is sin
sin expands what man does not know because he is incomplete
what is expanded by man being incomplete is infinite
to compensate for what man infinitely does not know, someone must infinitely be a god (they must infinitely transcend themselves)

(a) Man does not infinitely doubt himself, even though there is infinite reason to doubt, therefore there is someone who has infinitely compensated, who being so must be infinitely transcendent, or infinitely god

The logic of this is just as sound as your modus tollens and neatly fits the description one naturally attributes to god of infinite transcendence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Modus Tollens consists of two premises.

Correct.

The first is a hypothetical proposition.

Correct.

The second premise is denying the consequent of the hypothetical proposition.

Correct.

To say these two premises are not related is to completely undermine the whole meaning of MT....

It's simple. Without premise i there would be no premise ii. So, premise ii is contingent on i, hence they are related

Incorrect. Take this example of modus tollens:

1) If there's a burglar, then my dog will bark.
2) My dog isn't barking.
3) Therefore, there's no burglar.

Premise (2) exists irrespective of the truth, falsehood, utterance, etc, of premise (1). Whether burglars exist or not, whether the first premise is true or not, the second premise's truth or falsehood is completely unaffected.

Nevertheless, your claim (see posts #2, #4, etc) is that we can infer that my dog isn't barking by the if-then statement. So, do it. From the first premise, infer the second. In fact, here's another:

1) If there's tuna, my cat will meow.
2) My cat is/isn't meowing.
3) Therefore, there is/isn't tuna.

Delete as appropriate. If you really can infer (2) from (1), I'd be fascinated to learn how.

As an example, in post #15 you said: "You do know that in order to say that c followed from 1 and 2, that 2 would have to follow 1, correct? In order to reach the conclusions the premises must logically follow. You said that 1 and 2 is modes tollens, which again is a valid inference. That means the premises follow from one another." - I honestly can't see how that works. I've never seen anything to say that the premises of a logical argument have to follow from each other; that would seem to defeat the whole point. But, please, prove it

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've amended your post slightly, but the content is the same.

There is a very obvious proof of God that fits the model requested:

(i)

1. Man exists.
2. Man does not know everything.
3. There is something that man does not know.
4. What is not known must be compensated for.
5. Someone must compensate for what must be compensated for.
6. Theyl thing being unknown and compensated for makes the person compensating a god (they must transcend themselves).

The first three statements are correct, the next three are incorrect. In essence, it's just one big unsubstantiated claim on your part.

(ii) there is sin
sin expands what man does not know because he is incomplete
what is expanded by man being incomplete is infinite
to compensate for what man infinitely does not know, someone must infinitely be a god (they must infinitely transcend themselves)

Same as before, only this time every statement is incorrect (or, at least, unsubstantiated).

(a) Man does not infinitely doubt himself, even though there is infinite reason to doubt, therefore there is someone who has infinitely compensated, who being so must be infinitely transcendent, or infinitely god

The logic of this is just as sound as your modus tollens and neatly fits the description one naturally attributes to god of infinite transcendence.

That isn't true, or at the very least it's not 'obvious' as you claimed. What exactly do you mean when you say knowledge is 'compensated'? How does knowledge, or the lack of knowledge, be 'compensated'? The only thing I can think of, is that you're saying that all knowledge has to be known by someone, so all the things humans don't know have to be known by someone, and that someone is God.

 

[elopez]

Premise (2) exists irrespective of the truth, falsehood, utterance, etc, of premise (1). Whether burglars exist or not, whether the first premise is true or not, the second premise's truth or falsehood is completely unaffected.

If premise 2 exists irrespective of the utterance of premise 1, then it is not the argument of MT. It's simply just a statement at that point. We could not even call it premise 2. The first premise must be stated in order to get to the second premise as again the second premise is denying the consequent of the first premise. If there is no first premise, there cannot be a consequent to deny for the second premise. Do you realize this?

Nevertheless, your claim (see posts #2, #4, etc) is that we can infer that my dog isn't barking by the if-then statement. So, do it. From the first premise, infer the second. In fact, here's another:

1) If there's tuna, my cat will meow.
2) My cat is/isn't meowing.
3) Therefore, there is/isn't tuna.

I said since premise 1 is false 2 cannot even be reached, and it cannot. If the very first premise of an argument is false it falls apart right then and there. A valid conclusion cannot be reached and there is no need to move to the other premise. That is all I meant. I am saying that in order for there to be a second premise in MT, there has to be a first premise. In that sense both premises are indeed related, and without the first, there would be no second.

And again, MT has the rule of denying the consequent, not affirming it as you stated by "My cat is." That is an incorrect portrayal of MT.

 

[Received]

What is my reason for claiming (i)? God (as maximally excellent, ontologically perfect, or whatever) is supposed to be the source of all possible reality (even, in an extended sense, the source of Itself--not as a cause, but at least in the same way that A implies A). You would think, then, that God's essence would be present within all possibility in the same way that the law of non-contradiction (allegedly) is. That is, denial of God's existence in relation to any fact would render that fact unintelligible.

Who is to say that God isn't present in our day-to-day lives, but that *knowledge* of this presence is something different entirely? For example, God could be the basis of consciousness (you know, that sort of spiritual stuff that synthesizes with finitude, Kierkegaardian style), inherent in conscience (which isn't to deny the cultural influences of conscience), and some theologians would say penetrates all of reality itself. So God might possibly be there, just we need the right words and concepts to unveil this being-there. IOW, God can be the source of reality, and reality as such might be intrinsically connected with God, such in a way that we "experience" Him on a daily basis, but we don't see it as such, our concepts don't "allow" us to see it this way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If premise 2 exists irrespective of the utterance of premise 1, then it is not the argument of MT. It's simply just a statement at that point. We could not even call it premise 2. The first premise must be stated in order to get to the second premise as again the second premise is denying the consequent of the first premise. If there is no first premise, there cannot be a consequent to deny for the second premise. Do you realize this?

No. The second premise is a denial of fact, and that holds regardless of the truth of the first premise. I'm not being burgled, and my cat isn't eating tuna, regardless of whether the hypotheticals are true or not.

Modus tollens is a form of argument, and it doesn't cease to be modus tollens is the argument happens to be unsound. Obviously it's not a useful argument if it's unsound, but it's modus tollens nonetheless.

I said since premise 1 is false 2 cannot even be reached, and it cannot.

It cannot be 'reached'? Of course it can be reached.

If the very first premise of an argument is false it falls apart right then and there. A valid conclusion cannot be reached and there is no need to move to the other premise.

Wait, are you saying a valid conclusion can't be reached (which is correct), or that premise 2 can't be reached (which is incorrect)?

That is all I meant. I am saying that in order for there to be a second premise in MT, there has to be a first premise. In that sense both premises are indeed related, and without the first, there would be no second.

But there is a first premise. Perhaps it's an untrue premise, but it's a premise nonetheless. A 'premise' is just a statement in an argument held to be true. Whether it's actually true doesn't negate it being a premise.

1) Socrates was a woman.
2) All woman are emotional and untrustworthy.
3) Therefore, Socrates was emotional and untrustworthy.

In this syllogism, (1) and (2) are the premises, and (3) is the conclusion. (3) is a valid but unsound conclusion, as it does follow from its premises, but its premises are untrue.

The fact that (1) and (2) are untrue doesn't stop them from being premises. Likewise, the OP's argument does have two premises, and by modus tollens they do infer OP's conclusion. It is modus tollens, it just happens to have unsound premises.

Now, I could understand and agree if you were saying that, because the first premise is untrue, the conclusion is unsound and we therefore don't even need to consider the second premise; the argument doesn't work, case closed. But that's not what you said. You said that the second premise can be inferred from the first premise, which is absolutely false. You can't infer "My dog isn't barking" from "My dog barks when I'm being burgled".

And again, MT has the rule of denying the consequent, not affirming it as you stated by "My cat is." That is an incorrect portrayal of MT.

True enough, that was my error.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Who is to say that God isn't present in our day-to-day lives, but that *knowledge* of this presence is something different entirely? For example, God could be the basis of consciousness (you know, that sort of spiritual stuff that synthesizes with finitude, Kierkegaardian style), inherent in conscience (which isn't to deny the cultural influences of conscience), and some theologians would say penetrates all of reality itself. So God might possibly be there, just we need the right words and concepts to unveil this being-there. IOW, God can be the source of reality, and reality as such might be intrinsically connected with God, such in a way that we "experience" Him on a daily basis, but we don't see it as such, our concepts don't "allow" us to see it this way.

I think that's what he's saying, though - God's existence should be as utterly self-evidence as the blueness of the sky or the coldness of ice (sensory problems notwithstanding) or "A = A". God's presence isn't what's being queried, it's his obviousness.

 

[elopez]

No. The second premise is a denial of fact, and that holds regardless of the truth of the first premise. I'm not being burgled, and my cat isn't eating tuna, regardless of whether the hypotheticals are true or not.

No? I am not really so much speaking here about the truth or falsehood of any premise, but what you said in your earlier post that premise 2 would exist irrespective of the utterance of premise 1, which is clearly false according to the rule of MT. If premise 1 is not stated, there could not possibly be a premise 2 as it is denying the consequent of the 1st premise. That's what I am saying here in response to your earlier claim.

is a form of argument, and it doesn't cease to be modus tollens is the argument happens to be unsound. Obviously it's not a useful argument if it's unsound, but it's modus tollens nonetheless.

That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that it ceases to be MT if there is no first premise. You said premise 2 could exist irrespective of premise 1 being stated. In other words, premise 1 cannot be ignored in MT as you seem to have indicated earlier.

It cannot be 'reached'? Of course it can be reached.

Okay, let me rephrase. We can reach the second premise, but why would we grant that being the first premise is false? We shouldn't reach the second premise being the first is false. That is part of the point in a debate is to argue over the truth or falsehood or some premise that is challenged.

Wait, are you saying a valid conclusion can't be reached (which is correct), or that premise 2 can't be reached (which is incorrect)?

I am saying that a valid conclusion cannot be reached if even one premise is false. I am also saying that although premise 2 can technically be reached, it shouldn't be reached if indeed any prior premise is false. I realize that is not how I worded it the first time but we are all subject to errors, right?

But there is a first premise. Perhaps it's an untrue premise, but it's a premise nonetheless. A 'premise' is just a statement in an argument held to be true. Whether it's actually true doesn't negate it being a premise.

Right, and there must be a first premise for there to be a sechnd premise in MT. Again, if there is no first premise, there cannot be a second premise. The hypothetical proposition has to be stated first. Other than that you are right - a premise does not cease to be so just because it is false, it's just a false premise that really means nothing.

1) Socrates was a woman.
2) All woman are emotional and untrustworthy.
3) Therefore, Socrates was emotional and untrustworthy.

In this syllogism, (1) and (2) are the premises, and (3) is the conclusion. (3) is a valid but unsound conclusion, as it does follow from its premises, but its premises are untrue.

The fact that (1) and (2) are untrue doesn't stop them from being premises. Likewise, the OP's argument does have two premises, and by modus tollens they do infer OP's conclusion. It is modus tollens, it just happens to have unsound premises.

Right. I am not contesting this. What I am saying is that since premise 1 is untrue, we would stop there and argue/show that, instead of moving forward with the second premise. We could move to premise 2, but we would not or should not. And that's all I'm really saying about the OP's argument: since premise 1 is false, premise 2 is not even going to be addressed until the truth of 1 is established in light of me challenging it.

Now, I could understand and agree if you were saying that, because the first premise is untrue, the conclusion is unsound and we therefore don't even need to consider the second premise; the argument doesn't work, case closed. But that's not what you said. You said that the second premise can be inferred from the first premise, which is absolutely false. You can't infer "My dog isn't barking" from "My dog barks when I'm being burgled".

Well, I did say that, and that's what I've been saying for awhile now. I was also saying that both premise 1 and 2 in MT are related, which again is the case being 2 denies the consequent of 1. I was saying that since that is the case, 1 needs to be stated in order to even state 2, so that 2 is dependent on the utterance of 1.

I did probably say 2 can be inferred from 1, and if I did I didn't really mean it that way, but in a way that 2 is contingent on 1 being stated.

 

[The Engineer]

There is a very obvious proof of God that fits the model requested:

Which model was requested?

(i) Man exists.
Man does not know everything.
There is something that man does not know.

Premises accepted, so far.

What is not known must be compensated for.

In a way, yes, but that's not a logical necessity but an epistemological one. If you don't "compensate" your lack of knowledge, the universe doesn't stop making sense, it just stops making sense to you.

Someone must compensate for what must be compensated for.
The thing being unknown and compensated for makes the person compensating a god (they must transcend themselves).

No. You don't transcend yourself just because you fill the gaps of your knowledge with assumptions, and even if you did transcend yourself, you wouldn't fit the definition of God. So, false on two accounts.

(ii) there is sin

I'd disagree. There are morally wrong actions, but no sins.

sin expands what man does not know because he is incomplete

No, it doesn't. That is, unless you already accept the premise that sin exists in the first place and hampers human knowledge, but for this, you have to accept that God exists. Doing so would be begging the question.

what is expanded by man being incomplete is infinite

Not sure this works. I tried imagining this as a mathematical operation, but even then, it didn't make sense to me.

to compensate for what man infinitely does not know, someone must infinitely be a god (they must infinitely transcend themselves)

Didn't accept a single one of your premises, so I won't accept your conclusion.

(a) Man does not infinitely doubt himself, even though there is infinite reason to doubt, therefore there is someone who has infinitely compensated, who being so must be infinitely transcendent, or infinitely god

Same for this. I don't accept the premises of your reasoning, so I can't accept your conclusion.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No? I am not really so much speaking here about the truth or falsehood of any premise, but what you said in your earlier post that premise 2 would exist irrespective of the utterance of premise 1, which is clearly false according to the rule of MT. If premise 1 is not stated, there could not possibly be a premise 2 as it is denying the consequent of the 1st premise. That's what I am saying here in response to your earlier claim.


That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that it ceases to be MT if there is no first premise. You said premise 2 could exist irrespective of premise 1 being stated. In other words, premise 1 cannot be ignored in MT as you seem to have indicated earlier.


Okay, let me rephrase. We can reach the second premise, but why would we grant that being the first premise is false? We shouldn't reach the second premise being the first is false. That is part of the point in a debate is to argue over the truth or falsehood or some premise that is challenged.


I am saying that a valid conclusion cannot be reached if even one premise is false. I am also saying that although premise 2 can technically be reached, it shouldn't be reached if indeed any prior premise is false. I realize that is not how I worded it the first time but we are all subject to errors, right?


Right, and there must be a first premise for there to be a sechnd premise in MT. Again, if there is no first premise, there cannot be a second premise. The hypothetical proposition has to be stated first. Other than that you are right - a premise does not cease to be so just because it is false, it's just a false premise that really means nothing.


Right. I am not contesting this. What I am saying is that since premise 1 is untrue, we would stop there and argue/show that, instead of moving forward with the second premise. We could move to premise 2, but we would not or should not. And that's all I'm really saying about the OP's argument: since premise 1 is false, premise 2 is not even going to be addressed until the truth of 1 is established in light of me challenging it.


Well, I did say that, and that's what I've been saying for awhile now. I was also saying that both premise 1 and 2 in MT are related, which again is the case being 2 denies the consequent of 1. I was saying that since that is the case, 1 needs to be stated in order to even state 2, so that 2 is dependent on the utterance of 1.

I did probably say 2 can be inferred from 1, and if I did I didn't really mean it that way, but in a way that 2 is contingent on 1 being stated.

Fair enough, I think we are in agreement then.

 

[Gottservant]

No. You don't transcend yourself just because you fill the gaps of your knowledge with assumptions, and even if you did transcend yourself, you wouldn't fit the definition of God. So, false on two accounts.

You are not following the logic, there is a difference between a god and the God.

I'd disagree. There are morally wrong actions, but no sins.

Yes, well the argument does not work if you don't accept sin, since there is no basis to move from a god to the God. So no argument there.

No, it doesn't. That is, unless you already accept the premise that sin exists in the first place and hampers human knowledge, but for this, you have to accept that God exists. Doing so would be begging the question.

Sin is the absence of the will of God, so you are using the wrong definition if you think sin means I am thinking of God.

what is expanded by man being incomplete is infinite

Not sure this works. I tried imagining this as a mathematical operation, but even then, it didn't make sense to me.

You do not grasp it? Even the fact that you do not grasp it does not make you wonder if it might not be true?

Let me put it another way, if man is able to think of God continually, man is able to fail to think of God continually, so it behooves us to know whether or not we fail

Didn't accept a single one of your premises, so I won't accept your conclusion.

Same for this. I don't accept the premises of your reasoning, so I can't accept your conclusion.

Even as I wrote the second premise I had a gut feeling that it would fall because you have to accept sin. This leads me to my next thought: if you don't accept sin, don't try to think of God. In other words, it's pointless asking does God exist, if you don't first need Him for anything.

Back to topic, I can think of plenty of obvious proofs for God, but it seems that the precise proof required has to be tailor fit to suit the tastes of the one determining what is obvious. If there was an obvious proof but it meant you had to become a simpleton to grasp it... would you?

God therefore God.

Too simple?

 

[The Engineer]

You are not following the logic, there is a difference between a god and the God.

I'm aware of that. How is that relevant to the topic?

Yes, well the argument does not work if you don't accept sin, since there is no basis to move from a god to the God. So no argument there.

The argument doesn't work if one does not already accept your premises, which shows us that the argument does not work, period.

Sin is the absence of the will of God, so you are using the wrong definition if you think sin means I am thinking of God.

I'm pretty sure you're using the wrong definition. Either way, it doesn't matter. All definitions of sin, or at least all definitions that are relevant to our topic, require the existence of God.

You do not grasp it? Even the fact that you do not grasp it does not make you wonder if it might not be true?

I read it again, now I grasp it: It doesn't make sense. So I'm not wrong, you're wrong.

Let me put it another way, if man is able to think of God continually, man is able to fail to think of God continually, so it behooves us to know whether or not we fail

What does that even mean?!

Even as I wrote the second premise I had a gut feeling that it would fall because you have to accept sin.

Your gut feeling was right. Your argument doesn't work.

This leads me to my next thought: if you don't accept sin, don't try to think of God. In other words, it's pointless asking does God exist, if you don't first need Him for anything.

That's just wrong. There are other reasons to ask whether God exists. To find out whether the arguments of the guys who want to mangle established scientific theories make sense, for example.

Back to topic, I can think of plenty of obvious proofs for God,

Really? Why not share them with us?

but it seems that the precise proof required has to be tailor fit to suit the tastes of the one determining what is obvious.

Everyone has to determine for himself what is obvious and what not, so you're right on that account.

If there was an obvious proof but it meant you had to become a simpleton to grasp it... would you?

Probably. Provided it's actual proof and does not just appear as proof to an idiot.

God therefore God.

Too simple?

That's not just simple, that's a tautology.

 

[Gottservant]

That's not just simple, that's a tautology.

An eminently revealing tautology.

Too simple?

God, God: God.

 

[garymiah]

The truth is there is no god, there is only one life, its from the perspective of one person viewing the world. All the people of the world are illusionary and they do not realise they do not exist, they are scripted to have things to think about like religion and god.

 

[The Engineer]

An eminently revealing tautology.

Too simple?

God, God: God.

What did I just read?!

 

[Gottservant]

You want something really complicated?

In the beginning there was doubt and the doubt caused someone to be rejected and the rejection made them go wild, but there was time

This evidences that there is suffering in life, which evidences that someone must suffer, which evidences that someone must be able to tolerate suffering

From this we may conclude that someone was prepared to suffer, which allows us to conclude that someone must have announced that they were going to suffer, which allows us to conclude that someone will always suffer

The only person who can always suffer, is God.

See? Complicated.

But equally obvious.

The Engineer? The Engineer - The Engineer.