And not a single one of 'em true.

[oneirophrenia]

300 Logical Proofs for the Existence of God!

Many of these "proofs" are 100% logically valid: in other words, they are deductively sound. BUT! As we all know, in a deductive argument, only one of the premises need be flawed--even slightly--and the whole damned shebang will collapse.

My favorite:

ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Fairly solid, logically. But remember the words of Sir Bedevere, people: "And that is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped!" Also, witches are made of wood, therefore God exists.

Comments

[beeporama.livejournal.com]

Those aren't really solid logically: the example you posted is an example of Begging the Question, I think. From the looks of the site, though, they're intentionally doing a poor job.

[oneirophrenia.livejournal.com]

It is indeed an example of begging the question, but begging the question is not ultimately a fault of the deductive process so much as it is a fault of starting off with bad premises. See, that's what most of the god-arguers in history of done: they've begged the question so many times that, ultimately, you can never "hit bottom" and reach a final, irreducible proposition--and they call this infinite regress a "proof" that God exists. BULL. SHIT. Cantor long ago proved that infinities are conceptually manageable entities and can be proportionately compared...so what happens when you find a "proof" of God's existence that has omega steps? Not a damn thing, because I can make a "proof" that has omega plus one steps and wreck the previous one's validity without ever proving the actualy validity of mine. Craziness!

[beeporama.livejournal.com]

Semantics, maybe; I think begging the question is a deductive fault. The process isn't flawed but it's being used wrong-- it's like shitting on the ground and then saying the toilet is broken because flushing doesn't clean up the dookie.

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

You forget something very important. If you have faith then you don't need tangible proof. Before someone mentions that this is illogical and contrary to reason (which is entirely true) there is no reason why a sufficiently advanced individual cannot accept the knowable and unknowable simultaneously without having any real congnitive discord.

Case in point. I'm a pretty smart guy. I believe in and adhere to the ideas of science. I also believe in God as a fundamentally real, if transcendant, entity. I really don't see any significant problem with this.

[beeporama.livejournal.com]

Although I cannot hope to scientifically prove that Alan Cumming would be one of the best lays I ever had, I have faith that he would be.

I wouldn't try to teach high school science classes that Alan Cumming might be good for a roll in the hay, though.

[beeporama.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's un-adherent to science, but it's okay to be complex and containt multitudes, even you contradict yourself. I'm an adherent to fashion, I even try to dress nicely when I go to the grocery, but sometimes I wear flip-flops in the summer because they're so much more comfortable than shoes.

[oneirophrenia.livejournal.com]

Everyone has the intellectual right to believe in completely counter-intuitive, unprovable concepts--as materialistic as I am, I still am an extremely fatalistic person most of the time...and there's really no problem in "reconciling" my scientific standpoint with this because, well, there's no need whatsoever to reconcile them: I acknowledge the differences between viewpoints and that's it. What Jeremy (and I, for that matter, in the original post) are really objecting to is the application of scientific reasoning to things which absolute cannot be proven utilizing scientific reasoning--such as the existence of God. Throughout history, severely misguided people (including such otherwise impressive thinkers as Descartes and newton) tried to prove instances of faith by constructing all manner of completely falacious logical "proofs" for them...which is tantamount to using electrical engineering equations to prove how Gardnerian magick works. :) It just can't be done! Articles of faith are completely individual and they are completely true *for you*--but no one can ever prove their articles of faith to someone else using logic. It's *logically* impossible! Other people can share your beliefs, and that's all well and good, but when people try to convince *others* of their illogical beliefs using logic, they just end up looking silly.

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

The use of *logic* in theology. You are also holding people who lived more than 400 years ago to the same standards you hold today. Which is inherently wrong and could be inferred as being willfully obtuse. Especially being that logic is constantly being used to provide proof of the unprovable and unobservable.

Anyway, Einstein believed in God. He saw God in the math and took that as his proof that god existed. Many scientists and researchers also believe in god. Some see proof of his existence in the work they do. Some see it in their lives outside of their work. Some simply accept it without proof. Honestly, I know God exists. I simply do. Its an intuitive and, in my view, complete acceptable position.

Your hostility to it is really where my understanding and comprehension fails me.

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

See, thats a completely idiotic point of view. Its more than possible to believe in science and have faith. Why? Because only fools are so narrowly confined by adherence to a single doctrine as to be unable to conceive of anything outside of it.

Any sort of simplistic and deterministic outlook, like you seem to profess, is inherently limiting and, in my view, contrary to the flexibility of science. Conversely, relagting everything to matters of faith is willful ignorance and, again, inherently limiting. One can, and has, argue that taking such a position is actually contrary to scripture -
1 Thessalonians 5:2: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Re: Also

[beeporama.livejournal.com]

Bastard!

Re: Also

[beeporama.livejournal.com]

Oh, I wrote that before reading what else you wrote. I thought you were purposely contradicting yourself.

I'm okay with beliefs of faith when they aren't held up to the same standards as beliefs of science. When you say "I have faith in the Bible as well as a belief in science, so both should be taught in schools," that's wrong. When you say "I have faith in the Bible as well as a belief in science, so I'm going to go to church on Sunday and trust that Christ is my savior, but this whole dinosaur thing seems much more likely than a literal seven days," that's better. You aren't treating your faith on the same level as science; you are following your best hunch based on available evidence. Intelligent design doesn't PROVE a God but it offers a reasonable argument that there MIGHT be one. Whether you think that's a .00001% chance or a 51% chance or a 99.999999% chance is faith, I guess. But 100% is blind.

Does that make more sense?

Re: Also

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

Actually, I honestly don't think you've really thought this through. You are starting with an ap riori conclusion and adapting the logic structure to meet that conclusion. You base assumptions are, in my view, unfounded and actually unsuportable. I also feel that you don't have a very nuanced position when it comes to your conception of the great variety in faith - even inside of a single denomination.

Looking for a logical explanation for the functioning of the natural world is in no way against scripture or contrary to mainstream christian positions. This is why the catholic church sponsors a large amount of scientific research (and also has one the best observatories in the world). Understand the laws of nature (physics, math, etc) are a tool for better understanding God. There is really no contradiction in being faithful and scientific.

Re: Also

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

Also, case in point. I am a scientist. I get grants to do basic and applied research in computer science. I publish papers and go to conferences. I apply the scientific method to most everything I do. I also have a very strong belief in God (if not the catholic church). I have never had any sort of contradiction between my faith and my work. I've never stopped developing an algorithm and expected a miracle to occur. So while my personal experience doesn't prove the point that you can be a scientist and faithful it does disprove the idea that you can't be a scientist and faithful.

Re: Also

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

Also, one of the big problems with this is that most of these logical proofs and your perception of what is an acceptable proof is that they are based on aristotlean logic. Which obvioulsy and necessary leads to this problem because of its attributional foundation which requires first cause based on charcateristics as a fundamental necessity. Without characteristic first cause then you get into a logical morass which is actually a failing of aristotlean logic. Avicenna rejected this and used relational proofs instead. These were expanded on by Descartes but they couldn't get away from their Aristotlean backgrounds and came back to first causes again (Meditation of the Fisrt Philosophy, natch). This article explains about a modern melding of Avicenna and math -
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57

While some of the assumption might seem somewhat shakey it does turn out that the refutations of them are even less tenable. Essentially by rejecting the fear of infinite regression we can break out of the confines of Aristotean logic and do smoem much more interesting stuff.

Re: Also

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

Okay, so here is the problem, you don't want proof of God. You want proof of a specific God and you want it in characteristic and causal terms. I don't think you are going to get that.

Honestly, there is no *proof* of god though there is a logical means of arriving at the idea of god.

Re: Also

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

God is trancendent and hence not part of the physical world though still *possibly* able to act upon it.

That might explain why you perceive a problem where there is none.

Re: Also

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

Different realms. The only problem is when your base assumption is that they exist within the same realm of knowledge. And even though experience can overlap I think it spossible to have diveregent realms of knowledge and understanding.

Honestly, if you don't get that you never will get it. Please don't take any offense as none is intended. Some people just internalize contradiction better than others. Now, if you really want to get flummoxed try out theodicy.

Re: Also

[beeporama.livejournal.com]

I don't quite have time for the response I'd like to make at work. Perhaps we're defining faith differently; to me the difference between faith and hypothesis and theory is just a question of degree. I don't see it as contradictory. Maybe I can explain over the beer I'm likely to owe you.

Re: Tangent

[rapier1.livejournal.com]

See what I was saying about aristotlean logic being insufficient? Its also a conceptual problem of seeing the natural world as a unity instead of a composed plurality.

Also, intelligent design sucks. Theistic evolution is a much better theory and in manys way entirely compatible with strict evolution.

Re: Tangent

[beeporama.livejournal.com]

To me, the "argument" is "this shit is really complicated, seems unlikely that stuff worked out so perfectly by accident, some hand might have guided it." To me it's a narcissistic argument, but the most sensible of the lot.

Re: Tangent

[oneirophrenia.livejournal.com]

Well...who did the "designing," then? I bet *I* know! (http://www.venganza.org)

See, my one and only problem with intelligent design is that it begs the question (if there's a designer, who designed the designer?) and therefore introduces a number of non-necessary arguments and considerations into the mix. And second...once you mention a designer, any inquisitive person is going to ask, "So who is this designer anyway?" Christians will immediately say, "Why, 'tis the Big G!" Wiccans will say, "No, it's Gaia/the Earth Mother/Sun God/whatver." Tiplerites will say, "It's the Omega Point reaching back through proper time to ensure its own evolution." I would simply refer interested parties to Howard Philips Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness, which contain a perfectly logical and well-thought-out--and scientifically sound!--account of how humanity was provolved from bright apes to be a sort of servant species to the original owners of Earth, the interstellar colonists known only as The Old Ones.

So...who's right? At least when you're teaching evolution, you can just point to the data and say, "There it is...come up with your own interpretation of the basic facts." Which is why I favor Herr Rapier's theistic evolution approach (which is also strongly favored by the Roman Catholic Church and many mainstream religions): no one can dispute the simple facts derived by scientific analysis and collaborative interpretation of the data...but there's nothing whatsoever "unscientific" about choosing to have faith in the concept that an omnipotent Creative Force may have been responsible for the tweaking or ultimate guiding of the process. THAT concept begs no questions and doesn't contradict or in any way adds anything unverifiable to the equation: one can certainly choose to believe in theistic evolution if one wants, but that faith is just your global interpretation of the process as a holistic system--it does not in any way influence or unduly toy with the data that has been established by scientific study.

Einstein himself saw God in the equations--he came to that realization via study. He chose to interpret the results of the equations according to his faith, which did not in any way require you to believe in the same faith in order to judge his work scientifically valid. In order for intelligent design to be regarded as valid, you HAVE to admit the existence of a designer of some sort...which, of course, begs the question unnecessarily. You do NOT have to accept Einstein's particular faith--or the faith of a theistic evolutionist--to be able to appreciate or acknowledge the validity of the research and theories they produce. You can choose to interpret those results any way you like. Einstein looked at relativity and saw the beauty of YHWH's creative insight; *I* look at relativity and see the incredible beauty of sheer dynamic complexity arising from a handful of simple constants and interactions. Either way, the equations work without requiring ANY belief in a transcendent function...but they don't rule out any individual's desire to apply one's faith to them, either.