Yes, that's absolutely correct. You have found the hidden truth of my logic.
Logical proof that God exists
- Thread starter Shredderbeam
- Start date
Gnomey
Forum Addict
How is God existance itself? His Existance isn't necessary, which is what I've been asking all along. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't have the possibility to exist. God may be the cause of our existance, or an explosion could have been the cause of the existance of both ourselves and God (makes you wonder if God started off as a monkey or sludge). Existance can exist with or without God. They are not necessarily innertwined.
And then Walk On Home beat me to the latter part of what I was going to say... >_<
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 5,470
- Messages
- 8,074
I am pretty rusty on discrete mathematics. But I'll give it a shot:
The fallacy is at the end where it is concluded god exists. God may also be self contradictory or it is possible for him to exist but, despite this, he does not.
If there are any mistakes in the above please correct me.
Code:
p = god exists
~p = god does not exist
r = god is not self contradictory
s = it is impossible for god to exist
a = (p and ~~p) or (~p and ~p) = true
b = p->p = (~p or p) = true
c = ~p->~p = (p or ~p) = true
d = r->~s = (~r or ~s) = (god is self contradictory) or (it is not impossible for god to exist)
e = (d->(~p->~p))->p
e = ((~r or ~s)->(~p->~p))->p
e = ((~r or ~s)->(p or ~p))->p
e = (~(~r or ~s))->p
e = (r and s)->p
e = (~(r and s) or p)
e = (~r or ~s or p)
e = (god is self contradictory) or (it is not impossible for god to exist) or (god exists)
False conclusion: e therefore pIf there are any mistakes in the above please correct me.
darktweety
Forum Addict
wow that confused me lol, didnt understand a thing of it...
Gnomey
Forum Addict
Sythe wins for the lack of anyone being able to understand and then dispute his post...
C
Cruel__Machine
Guest
No kidding...
Sythe, we have no room for further misconstruing. Your symbolic structure holds no universal interpretation. But seems you've reached similar conclusions others have, which have already been counter-argued.
I still think the proof holds absolutely no ground. But I gave up on this thread long ago, it progressively makes less sense.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 5,470
- Messages
- 8,074
Bollocks, ignorant sloth. It is legitimate Symbolic logic, an area of discrete mathematics.
Logical symbolism is easy to understand:
~ = not
and = logical and
or = logical or
() = brackets, inner most must be dissolved first
a...z = logical statements
-> = implication I.e. a->b 'a implies b' same as 'if a, then b'
watch:
c = robert is wearing blue socks
d = robert is wearing red socks
We can logically combine these statements using an implication:
(c->~d) and (d->~c)
That is to say:
(if robert is wearing blue socks then he cannot be wearing red socks) and
(if robert is wearing red socks then he cannot be wearing blue socks)
You can expand implication from a->b to ~a or b. Watch:
a = I have 38 dollars
b = I can make a purchase of the fine liquor
We may say:
a->b = (if (I have 38 dollars) then (I can make a purchase of the fine liquor))
a->b = ~a or b = (I don't have 38 dollars) or (I can make a purchase of the fine liquor)
Another expansion you can do in boolean algebra is the following:
~(a and b) = ~a or ~b
Let a = I have a hat
Let b = I have socks
~(a and b) = not (I have a hat and socks)
~a or ~b = I don't have a hat or I don't have socks.
If you are interested I suggest buying a text book on discrete mathematics.
He is existence itself because it is a God stripped of all attributes but existence. What else would it be?
Sythe said:
The concept of God stripped of all attributes but existence cannot be self-contradictory, because it is but one point, which cannot contradict itself. For a contradiction to occur, there must be two points, such as a circular square.
Cruel__Machine said:
Whyever not?
C
Cruel__Machine
Guest
I'm familiar with what you intended, but are you going to be so stupid as to say it's universal? You should've given the key originally.
Anyhow, it's plain wrong. You generalized statements into such logic as "p->p"... that is true, obviously, but the interpretation is wrong (I assume it's supposed to be "God existing implies he always existed", which is what was stated). That's the tip of the iceberg.
FourFeetOver
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 123
Your error is that you have made God a necessary being by making him synonymous with existence.
Existence has to exist, and that is true. God, stripped of all his attributes except existence, is no longer anything except existence. So if God is only existence, then he must exist... but God is not existence. If you instead assume that it was never originally one of his attributes (as an Atheist would), then he cannot exist.
If he doesn't hold the attribute of existence in the first place, then he is stripped down to nothing. Because after all, if he doesn't exist, then it is impossible for him to exist.
Existence has to exist, and that is true. God, stripped of all his attributes except existence, is no longer anything except existence. So if God is only existence, then he must exist... but God is not existence. If you instead assume that it was never originally one of his attributes (as an Atheist would), then he cannot exist.
If he doesn't hold the attribute of existence in the first place, then he is stripped down to nothing. Because after all, if he doesn't exist, then it is impossible for him to exist.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 58
Right, dont get me started >.< Christianity was made up my the jews long ago, used as a "hoax" to cover up our real past and so to leave a certain few with alot of power. You say it is "Impossible for g*d Not to exist" to be honest there is no proof that it exists what so ever. You might say "Well theres no proof g*d doesnt exist either" Theres no proof a mans penis can jump "off" and walk around juggling whilst playing "Y M C A" on a piano with its "feet" either but it does not mean it exists, not at all.
.QFT.
I think that only applys to a Christian god, but you know.
sexor
Active Member
i beileve in god but wtf was that stupide homo shit
It is not necessarily true that the existence of God means he's their. If God is not their, that does not mean he cannot be their. The statement, is as follows, destroys it's meaning. If God does exist, it does not mean that his existence is valid.
Example: ..
It's like food and digestion. The food at a point in time exist.. However once you chew, swallow, and digest the food, it no longer exist. However, if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, that must mean that the food still exist, but doesn't.
Get it?
Similar threads
