Irrefutable proof that a god exists

[Poseidon]

I agree with you guys, but you are bludgeoning him with semantic technicalities. So he got the damned words all scrambled. Have pity on the poor deluded individual.   I suspect that he is a high school sophomore and it is not nice to abuse children.

[free]

I know this will be hard for all of you to believe, after all, many of you have wasted years thinking otherwise, but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

I think we can all agree that if an existing FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists, then a FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists. (And by "an existing FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER", I mean, "a FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER that exists"). So, to prove that a FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists, I merely need to prove that an existing FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists, which is simple enough.

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

Anyway, back to existence of a FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

• An existing FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists.
• An existing FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER does not exist.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

So, we've established that "an existing FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists", and we've already established that that implies "a FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER exists!

Fixed it.

[jaimehlers]

Jaime:

First off, this statement is a logical fallacy.  "If something exists, then it exists."  You're restating the premise as its conclusion, the most basic form of circular logic.

It's not exactly a fallacy; it's more of a truism. If P, Then P. That's true, but it's hardly worth saying, as it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

I consider the way he put it to be a fallacy.  "If an existing something exists, then it exists."  That's why it's circular logic, in my opinion; he's presupposing that the 'something' is already existing when he sets up the statement.  I paraphrased and left the 'existing' out, my statement should have been "if an existing something exists, then it exists" to properly parallel his.  If he had just said, "if a god exists, then it exists", I would not have had any trouble with it, because that's probably the most basic logical statement one can make.

[jaimehlers]

I agree with you guys, but you are bludgeoning him with semantic technicalities. So he got the damned words all scrambled. Have pity on the poor deluded individual.   I suspect that he is a high school sophomore and it is not nice to abuse children.

With respect, a high school sophomore is not a child, but a young adult who society insists on keeping busy with an institutional education.

Furthermore, if he is a high school sophomore, he isn't getting a very good education if he can make such a fallacious argument.  We'd do him more harm by ignoring the technicalities than we are by correcting them, even if it is overkill.

[Emily]

I agree with you guys, but you are bludgeoning him with semantic technicalities. So he got the damned words all scrambled. Have pity on the poor deluded individual.   I suspect that he is a high school sophomore and it is not nice to abuse children.

Eh, if he is a sophomore in high school perhaps he will learn how his statement is flawed. Personally speaking I probably would've said the same thing  (and I might've) when I was in high school[1]. Hell, if only this forum was around when I was a sophomore in high school. It would've save me from wasting my time in a church three times a week that's for sure...

It will be interesting to see what PotC has to say about the comments made here. Hopefully he doesn't forget about this thread when he returns.   

1.	with my Tennessee, bible belt upbringing and all

[MadBunny]

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle.  For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

If John owns five cats?



Then he owns four cats AND he doesn't own four cats, since he owns five.

[peterofthecorn]

I consider the way he put it to be a fallacy.  "If an existing something exists, then it exists."  That's why it's circular logic, in my opinion; he's presupposing that the 'something' is already existing when he sets up the statement.  I paraphrased and left the 'existing' out, my statement should have been "if an existing something exists, then it exists" to properly parallel his.  If he had just said, "if a god exists, then it exists", I would not have had any trouble with it, because that's probably the most basic logical statement one can make.

I'm not presupposing anything. I said,

"if an existing god exists, then god exists"

Circular reasoning requires the conclusion to assumed by a premise. This premise assumes nothing; it is a simple if-then statement. It makes no claim about whether the either statement in the if-then construct is true, it only claims that if the first is true, then the second is also true (and through contraposition, if the second is false, then the first is also false.)

If you think my argument is logically invalid, let me present it more formally.

Code: [Select]

If B then A.
Not(Not(B))
Therefore, A

As an example, let us substitute B and A with "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is a mortal", respectively:

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal.
It is not the case that Socrates is not a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.

I hope you can agree that this is logically valid. If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false.

Let's substitute back in the original argument, B is "an existing god exists" and A is "a god exists".

If an existing god exists, then a god exists.
It is not the case that an existing god does not exist.
Therefore, a god exists.

Since you disagree with the conclusion, to be consistent, you must disagree with at least one of the premises.

But you have already acknowledged the first as a truism, a tautological statement true by mere form, bleedingly obvious, and hardly worth noting. I would assume that that means you agree with it.

The second premise must be true because to assert otherwise would violate the law of non-contradiction. It is certainly not possible for an existing god to not exist. Either it exists, or it doesn't; both cannot be simultaneously true.

Since the first premise is obviously true, and the second is also obviously true, and the form of the logic can be easily proven to be valid, then I fail to understand why you so stubbornly refuse to accept the conclusion.

[Historicity]

Circular reasoning requires the conclusion to assumed by a premise.

Which is exactly what you did.

Don't bother putting up another wall of words.  "Existing god" is what was to be proved.  You made it a premise.

[peterofthecorn]

Circular reasoning requires the conclusion to assumed by a premise.

Which is exactly what you did.

Don't bother putting up another wall of words.  "Existing god" is what was to be proved.  You made it a premise.

No, I didn't. It was in an "if" statement. "IF an existing god exists". An if statement does not assume that it's argument is true or false. It merely states that one proposition implies another. If you people can't understand something simple like that, then talking about logic with you is a waste of time. 

[fishjie]

lol if an existing god exists.   if a red dog is red.    if a dead guy is dead.    talk about useless tautologies.    stick with the anselm's ontological argument, at least that one was made by a respected philosopher from back in the day (although that argument is also terrible)

[Aaron123]

Since the first premise is obviously true, and the second is also obviously true, and the form of the logic can be easily proven to be valid, then I fail to understand why you so stubbornly refuse to accept the conclusion.

Explain how the existence of god is "obviously true".  By this, I mean other than "assume that god exists".  So far, this is what your argument boils down to.

[Astreja]

If an existing god exists, then a god exists.
It is not the case that an existing god does not exist.
Therefore, a god exists.

Fine.  Now prove that "an existing god" is not a null set.  If you succeed in that enterprise, you may then attempt to demonstrate that the set contains only your deity of choice and no others.

[jdawg70]

Circular reasoning requires the conclusion to assumed by a premise.

Which is exactly what you did.

Don't bother putting up another wall of words.  "Existing god" is what was to be proved.  You made it a premise.

No, I didn't. It was in an "if" statement. "IF an existing god exists". An if statement does not assume that it's argument is true or false. It merely states that one proposition implies another. If you people can't understand something simple like that, then talking about logic with you is a waste of time. 

You wrote some pseudocode earlier.  Here's the problem with the if statement that you're proposing:

if(object.doesExist == true)
{
     object.doesExist = true;
}

Notice how useless the above lines of code are?

[jaimehlers]

I'm not presupposing anything. I said,

"if an existing god exists, then god exists"

Circular reasoning requires the conclusion to assumed by a premise. This premise assumes nothing; it is a simple if-then statement. It makes no claim about whether the either statement in the if-then construct is true, it only claims that if the first is true, then the second is also true (and through contraposition, if the second is false, then the first is also false.)

And just what do you think saying "if an existing god exists" does?  The proper form of the statement is, "if a god exists, then it exists"; for you to say "if an existing god exists, then it exists", you're presupposing that this god exists as part of the premise, and concluding that this god therefore does exist, which is circular reasoning.

If you think my argument is logically invalid, let me present it more formally.

You can state it however you like, but as long as you put it in the general form of "an existing god exists, therefore it exists", it's circular reasoning as I stated above.

Code: [Select]

If B then A.
Not(Not(B))
Therefore, A

As an example, let us substitute B and A with "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is a mortal", respectively:

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal.
It is not the case that Socrates is not a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.

I hope you can agree that this is logically valid. If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false.

Sure, it's logically valid.  You also aren't phrasing one of your initial conditions as "male Socrates is a man".

Let's substitute back in the original argument, B is "an existing god exists" and A is "a god exists".

This is where you're getting it wrong.  B, "an existing god exists", is not different than A, "a god exists", because both are just saying, "a god exists".  The proper way to do it is between "a god exists" and "a god does not exist".  Then you can logically set up your comparison and have it be (more) valid.  But comparing "an existing god" and "a god" is not meaningful.  You might as well say "an existing unicorn" and "a unicorn".  There is no difference between the two; you are just stating that the first case definitely exists and using that to justify your conclusion.

If an existing god exists, then a god exists.
It is not the case that an existing god does not exist.
Therefore, a god exists.

As I stated, this is invalid.

Since you disagree with the conclusion, to be consistent, you must disagree with at least one of the premises.

And I disagree with the initial statement "an existing god exists".

But you have already acknowledged the first as a truism, a tautological statement true by mere form, bleedingly obvious, and hardly worth noting. I would assume that that means you agree with it.

The second premise must be true because to assert otherwise would violate the law of non-contradiction. It is certainly not possible for an existing god to not exist. Either it exists, or it doesn't; both cannot be simultaneously true.

Since the first premise is obviously true, and the second is also obviously true, and the form of the logic can be easily proven to be valid, then I fail to understand why you so stubbornly refuse to accept the conclusion.

One premise is simply a restatement of the other, with the added initial presumption that it is an existing god - one that was already existing, in other words.  You are assuming that it exists as part of the premise and using that to prove that it exists.  This is clearly circular reasoning.  That is why I do not accept it, because it is a logical fallacy.

If you remove the circular reasoning by deleting "existing", you are essentially saying, "if a god exists, then a god exists".  This is a tautological statement true by mere form, bleedingly obvious, and hardly worth noting.  The only thing you do by saying that it is "an existing god" is to assume it already exists beforehand, and subsequently 'prove' the premise true with the conclusion.

[Noman Peopled]

Hm. I wonder why PotC chose not to adress any of the several statements posted referring to the fact that using his reasoning one might "logically" prove anything, instead choosing to defend its formalisms.
It seems to me like being applicable to anything - with absurd conclusions - might be proof enough that there's a monkey-wrench in there somewhere.

[pingnak]

Irrefutable proof that a god does not exist (or exists, but does not give a crap about 'belief'):

There are a bazillion different religions and sects of religions.  They disagree.

If there were a god, a god that CARED so much about what people believed, how many religions would there be?

I mean, FFS, there are thousands of fruity flavors, just of familiar old 'Christianity' out there.  Can't Jesus get his story straight?  I keep hearing the 'infallible' bible was penned by their own god (or not, according to which Christians you talk to).

Is Jesus 'THE GOD' or the 'Son' of 'THE GOD', or a piece of a threesome with a ghost?  Are the crackers and grape koolade important?  Dunking people's heads in water?  Showing up on sunday?  Having the right top sekret decoder ring for random bible nonsense?  All the bible?  Building a super-size church?  Dancing?  Handling snakes?  Magic underwear?  Babbling incoherently?  Going somewhere tropical and drinking flavorade spiced with poison?

Take a list of possible beliefs, randomize them, throw them on a table, and there's probably a church already that believes in that.  If not, a good business opportunity is there to found one. 

[grant]

I consider the way he put it to be a fallacy.  "If an existing something exists, then it exists."  That's why it's circular logic, in my opinion; he's presupposing that the 'something' is already existing when he sets up the statement.  I paraphrased and left the 'existing' out, my statement should have been "if an existing something exists, then it exists" to properly parallel his.  If he had just said, "if a god exists, then it exists", I would not have had any trouble with it, because that's probably the most basic logical statement one can make.

I'm not presupposing anything. I said,

"if an existing god exists, then god exists"

Circular reasoning requires the conclusion to assumed by a premise. This premise assumes nothing; it is a simple if-then statement. It makes no claim about whether the either statement in the if-then construct is true, it only claims that if the first is true, then the second is also true (and through contraposition, if the second is false, then the first is also false.)

If you think my argument is logically invalid, let me present it more formally.

Code: [Select]

If B then A.
Not(Not(B))
Therefore, A

As an example, let us substitute B and A with "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is a mortal", respectively:

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal.
It is not the case that Socrates is not a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.

I hope you can agree that this is logically valid. If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false.

Let's substitute back in the original argument, B is "an existing god exists" and A is "a god exists".

If an existing god exists, then a god exists.
It is not the case that an existing god does not exist.
Therefore, a god exists.

Since you disagree with the conclusion, to be consistent, you must disagree with at least one of the premises.

But you have already acknowledged the first as a truism, a tautological statement true by mere form, bleedingly obvious, and hardly worth noting. I would assume that that means you agree with it.

The second premise must be true because to assert otherwise would violate the law of non-contradiction. It is certainly not possible for an existing god to not exist. Either it exists, or it doesn't; both cannot be simultaneously true.

Since the first premise is obviously true, and the second is also obviously true, and the form of the logic can be easily proven to be valid, then I fail to understand why you so stubbornly refuse to accept the conclusion.

You're an idiot.

Lets just leave it at that.

[kcrady]

Peterofthecorn, can you name any entity other than your god, the existence of which is "proved" by using "logic" in this manner?  We never see physicists publishing papers that start out with "If existing faster-than-light neutrinos exist, then faster-than-light neutrinos exist..."  Why not?  Because scientists set up their claims in such a way that they can be validated or falsified by appeal to reality itself, rather than carefully-arranged human verbiage.  But, if you prefer to argue in syllogisms...

1) An existing god should have consequences in reality that a non-existing god will not.
2) An existing god that has no consequences in reality is indistinguishable from a non-existing god.
3) Per Anselm's Ontological argument, a god that exists is greater than a god that does not exist.
4) An existing god that is indistinguishable from a non-existing god cannot be the Greatest Conceivable Being, therefore it cannot be God.
5) Therefore, an existing God would have consequences in reality that would not be present if there was no existing God.

So, what consequences in reality can you cite as manifestations of the presence of an existing God?  Per #2 above, the consequences in question have to be something atheistic/naturalistic world-view would not anticipate as part of how reality would behave.  If the proposed consequence is something both world-views agree on ("There are clouds."), then it is not an effect that distinguishes between "There is an existing god" and "There is no existing god."  Miraculous healings of amputees would be one such consequence, if they occurred, hence the title of this Forum.

However, the very fact that you try to prove your god's existence by "pure logic" (and dodgy "logic" at that!) rather than any real consequences of his presence strongly implies that you anticipate in advance that there will be no such consequences.  Which means: when it comes to anticipating how reality will behave, you expect it to behave the way it would if no gods exist.  You live in the same godless Universe we do, and you know it.  The purpose then, of the sort of pseudo-syllogism-as-summoning-incantation you use here isn't an attempt to show that your proposed god is real--you already know better than that.  What it does, is serve as a way to tell yourself and others that you possess a belief-in-god.  When it comes to anticipating reality's behavior, you don't actually have one of those.  What you have is a belief in belief in god.  In other words, you believe in the value of the belief, not in the real existence of the god.

Having a belief-in-god makes you a good person.  It says that your life has meaning and purpose, and is your passport to membership in your community of faith.  In order to acquire those benefits, you have to signal to yourself and others that you have belief-in-god.  One way to reconcile the contradiction between professing to have a belief-in-god while anticipating the consequences of god's non-existence, is to structure the contents of your belief-in-god so that it is completely divorced from reality.  In your case, you have set out to place your god solely in a realm of "pure logic," where he can be summoned into "existence" (in that realm) by the simple trick of inserting "existing" into a premise to modify "god."

Nutshell: The whole method and structure of your "argument" would be neither necessary nor desirable if your god actually existed in reality.  The only reason you have to present this sort of "argument" is if, on the level of your understanding of the behavior of reality, you anticipate as if there is no real god.   

[Samothec]

I'm not presupposing anything. I said,

"if an existing god exists, then god exists"

Circular reasoning requires the conclusion to assumed by a premise. This premise assumes nothing; it is a simple if-then statement. It makes no claim about whether the either statement in the if-then construct is true, it only claims that if the first is true, then the second is also true (and through contraposition, if the second is false, then the first is also false.)

If you think my argument is logically invalid, let me present it more formally.

Code: [Select]

If B then A.
Not(Not(B))
Therefore, A

As an example, let us substitute B and A with "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is a mortal", respectively:

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal.
It is not the case that Socrates is not a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.

I hope you can agree that this is logically valid. If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false.

Let's substitute back in the original argument, B is "an existing god exists" and A is "a god exists".

If an existing god exists, then a god exists.
It is not the case that an existing god does not exist.
Therefore, a god exists.

Since you disagree with the conclusion, to be consistent, you must disagree with at least one of the premises.
(snipped)

You don't seem to understand that in your premise you are assuming the word "existing". When you say "an existing god" you present an assumed premise that god exists; this is why adding "then a god exists" makes it a tautology.

Also, your comparison to the form "If B then A. Not(Not(B)) Therefore, A" is also flawed. You are actually presenting "If AB then A. Not(Not(AB)) Therefore, A". That is why several people pointed out that when using that formula "B" can be anything and be true.

As for "it is a simple if-then statement", well, I can say the following to show that the contents of an if-then statement are not simple and innocent[1]:
If I am writting then you are wrong.

1.	(implied):

[Samuelxcs]

can we apply this theory to prove all gods exist?

But then all religions would be happy, do we want to make such a sacrifice?

[Zankuu]

peter, you didn't address the contradiction I presented you.

I'm not presupposing anything. I said,

"if an existing god exists, then god exists"

Yes you are. You're presupposing an existing god. Here, I'll add another presupposition:

Either an existing evil god exists
or an existing evil god does not exist
It is not the case that an existing evil god does not exist.
Therefore, an existing evil god exists.

If you disagree with this then you see the problem.

If you think my argument is logically invalid, let me present it more formally.

Code: [Select]

If B then A.
Not(Not(B))
Therefore, A

As an example, let us substitute B and A with "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is a mortal", respectively:

If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is a mortal.
It is not the case that Socrates is not a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.

I hope you can agree that this is logically valid. If the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false.

Let's substitute back in the original argument, B is "an existing god exists" and A is "a god exists".

If an existing god exists, then a god exists.
It is not the case that an existing god does not exist.
Therefore, a god exists.

Since you disagree with the conclusion, to be consistent, you must disagree with at least one of the premises.

But you have already acknowledged the first as a truism, a tautological statement true by mere form, bleedingly obvious, and hardly worth noting. I would assume that that means you agree with it.

The second premise must be true because to assert otherwise would violate the law of non-contradiction. It is certainly not possible for an existing god to not exist. Either it exists, or it doesn't; both cannot be simultaneously true.

Since the first premise is obviously true, and the second is also obviously true, and the form of the logic can be easily proven to be valid, then I fail to understand why you so stubbornly refuse to accept the conclusion.

Your deductive argument is valid, but it's unsound. That's the issue we have with it. This is how we view your argument:

An existing leprechaun exists
or an existing leprechaun does not exist.
It is not the case that an existing leprechaun does not exist.
Therefore, an existing leprechaun exists.

The argument is a valid type, but this unsound argument wouldn't convince you that leprechauns exist, would it? So why do you think its convincing for an invisible deity?

[Hatter23]

I know this will be hard for all of you to believe, after all, many of you have wasted years thinking otherwise, but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

• An existing god exists.
• An existing god does not exist.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

This isn't logic, this is sophistry. Since the first of the two possible premises is a tautology, it can also be dispensed with as easily as the second.

[free]

I can use your logic to prove that you don't exist!

If a non-existing POTC doesn't exist, then POTC doesn't exist.
A non-existing POTC MUST not exist,
Therefore POTC doesn't exist.

So who started the thread?

Do you see the reflexive nature of your argument?  In my parody, do you see how it relies on you not existing?  The same way your logic relies on God existing?  Seems a bit like affirming the consequent to me.

[Add Homonym]

Still just being trolled. I see nothing in Pete's posts that suggest anything other than TIC.

[screwtape]

peterofthecorn

I do not think you are so dense as to not see the problem with your opening argument.  I think you are trolling.  Please stop it.

regards

[Nam]

To the OP,

You lost me with this:

but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

My viewpoint, and non-belief in a deity/god has nothing to do with "emotion".

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists.

I've heard this before.  You're not the first to use such terminology.  I found it pathetically inane then, as I do now.

The rest determined for me that

1. You're an idiot.
2. You didn't think up this on your own; you most likely plagiarised it from someone else.

-Nam

[Mr. Blackwell]

1. You're an idiot.
2. You didn't think up this on your own; you most likely plagiarised it from someone else.

-Nam

The first time I read the OP and every time since. I keep hearing Edward Current saying "check mate" in my head.

[penfold]

• An existing god exists.
• An existing god does not exist.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility.

Peterofthecorn, kudos, this is a neat little ontological proof; I particularly liked your use of the law of the excluded middle, very elegant.

I have a couple of points to make.

(i) Necessary existence:

As has been pointed out above your argument can be used to show the existence of anything; I could replace the word God with unicorn and not harm the structure of your argument at all.

This broad objection to ontological argument was first raised by Gaunilo in response to Anselm’s ontological argument. Anselm’s response is on point; God is a special case. The reason being that if God exists then he exists necessarily; ie he exists in all possible worlds – if God exists then it is impossible for God not to exist.  (Whereas we can clearly conceive of a possible world without unicorns - in fact I am pretty sure this world is such a place!)

If you modified the idea of “God existing” to “God necessarily existing” you would avoid this ground of objection.

(ii) Kant and why we should never accept ontological arguments:

In the Critique of Pure Reason (Pt II Div II BK II Ch III Sc IV) Kant addressed ontological arguments in general. His points out that every sentence can be divided into subject and predicate: So “triangles have three angles” can be divided up into a subject: “triangles” and a predicate “have three angles”.

Now some sentences are what we call analytic truths. This means that their truth can be seen without reference to evidence; ie “a triangle has three angles”. Compare to a sentence like “today it is raining”, which clearly relies upon evidence to determine its truth – such evidence based sentences are known as synthetic truths.

If I take an analytic truth and ‘cancel’ the predicate I am left with a contradiction: ie “triangles do not have three angles”. Your argument is of exactly that form: “An existing God exists” is analytically true, therefore “An existing God does not exist” is a contradiction [therefore God exists!].

However Kant notices something else. If I ‘cancel’ not only the predicate but also the subject no contradiction arises: ie “not triangles do not have three angles”. Clearly there is no contradiction here.

Now Kant looks closely at ontological arguments for the existence of things. He points out that if you cancel the predicate of “exists” then you are by definition also cancelling the subject! So any statement with the predicate “exists” (or “not exists”) cannot be held to be either an analytic truth or a contradiction. Put another way all existence statements must, by definition, be synthetic (requiring evidence).

…

So I’m afraid despite the admittedly engaging effort I, for one, will not be accepting this as a proof for God. Kant’s work on the predicate of existence shows us that all forms of the ontological argument are doomed to failure.

Thanks for the OP, interesting stuff.

Peace…

ps: To those posting on this thread. I used to come to these forums regularly but the tone and aggression I found here was too upsetting so I have taken a long hiatus. I am sad to see that not much has changed. I am a philosophy teacher, peterofthecorn's argument is not valid but the reason it is not is very subtle. While many pointed to how you could use his argument to prove other things (a reductio ad absurdum) there is no good account of what is wrong with his method in principle. Given that fact the aggressive tone, and accusations of idiocy and trolling are deeply unfair. There is a fine line between vibrant energetic debate and priggishness; more than a few of the above responses seem to fall the wrong side of that line. It is sad that the supposedly 'rational' world of atheism should exhibit such belligerence in the face of an honest attempt to argue for God's existence. There is absolutely no need to be uncivil.

[One Above All]

It is sad that the supposedly 'rational' world of atheism should exhibit such belligerence in the face of an honest attempt to argue for God's existence. There is absolutely no need to be uncivil.

The "honest attempt" (and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here) was the original post. After that, everything was purely dishonest. Many people pointed out the mistakes with that argument, which the OP completely ignored. People have repeatedly explained the same valid points over and over again, which the OP also ignored.

IMO, this is not being uncivil. It's being honest.