Am I so stupid at math or did I just prove God?

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 117
#91
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,922
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Believers simply believe in some God.
You haven’t proven that, either.

In that box, there is 50% chance that there is undetectable God in there.
The qualifier “undetectable” is where you establish the upper hand in this. You have established that there is a greater than 0% probability that something undetectable exists. Whoopty do. Because we are unable to detect this entity, that is how we know it possibly exists!


#92
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,399
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
focusing on the practical consequences of belief
Thats the unproved premise which I am talking about. Even if we assume that the only Gods possible are the ones listed in Pascal's wager, the idea that good atheists go to Hell is not just unproved, but basically insane.
The aim is not to prove atheists go to hell. It is to save atheists from going to hell in the most practical and simple way.
Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument suggesting that it's rational to believe in God, even if there's no proof of his existence, because the potential rewards of belief (eternal life) outweigh the potential losses (finite inconveniences of believing) if God does exist. It's a form of pragmatic argument, focusing on the practical consequences of belief rather than on providing evidence for it.
Topic's author
#93
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
You haven’t proven that, either
Its my definition of believers here. The debate is just about if some God exists and probability for that.


The qualifier “undetectable” is where you establish the upper hand in this. You have established that there is a greater than 0% probability that something undetectable exists. Whoopty do. Because we are unable to detect this entity, that is how we know it possibly exists!
The math is simply based on idea that even with 1% chance of each individual God existing, 1000 of such Gods create chance of 99% that at least one exists now. There are some variants of the argument, even with just one God instead of 1000. But they are based on individual low chances collectively creating higher chance.
#94
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,731
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The very concept of proving anything requires logic
That is not true.
Then prove it without using logic. Go.

The problem in your argument that its essentially circular.
Why is that a problem?

God can exist without logic
Proposition X: "God is both a god and not a god (at the same time in the same sense)".

Question: is Proposition X possible? Yes or No?
#95
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,399
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It’s my definition of believers here. The debate is just about if some God exists and probability for that.
The evidence is in the minds of the believers. That is where God makes his presence known.
Topic's author
#96
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
Then prove it without using logic. Go
If I dont need logic, it is already proved then with no need for me to prove it. Besides, in void where there are no logical laws, there are no limits on existence, as logical laws are actually just limits. In that sense, the mere existence of lack of logic means infinite power of creation where everything is possible.

Why is that a problem?
Its a problem for you, because if you hold position that "A proves A" is a valid form of reasoning, then God is proved by merely saying "God proves God". And if you hold position that something can be proved by simply not being questioned, then me not questioning God would prove God.

This is especially the case for problem of truth determination system. System which determines truth would basically have to be able to determine itself as true in order to be true, which is logically impossible. Thus, it is only possible that such system is created and proved by non-truth. Same applies to logic. Any closed system suffers from circular fallacy, except just one. The only closed system which doesnt suffer from circular fallacy is void without any logic or truth. By tautology argument, truth can only be born from non-truth, and logic can only be born from non-logic. The opposite case doesnt work. All logic cannot be created by itself, because then all other things could just create themselves as well, including God. It also cannot be unquestioned without cause, because then all other things wouldnt need cause either.

This problem of logic cannot be solved in any way, and many philosophers spent their entire life trying to solve problem of logic being entirely circular. 

Its same problem with basic definitions. In the end, they all must end up in a circle, because you cant define all words infinitely.
#97
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,922
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Its my definition of believers here
Someone who believes in something undetectable?

The debate is just about if some God exists
Again, you have established that something undefined other than it being undetectable has a greater than 0% chance of existing. In other words, you have established that something meaningless and evasive has a greater than 0% chance of existing. Is this a profound accomplishment to you?
Topic's author
#98
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
Someone who believes in something undetectable?
Well, duh. Undetectable God. Or at least currently undetectable God.

Now, there are other arguments about God having proved positive effects on people's lives, but thats different from probability argument.
#99
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,922
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Well, duh. Undetectable God. Or at least currently undetectable God.
“I believe in an undetectable God. Why do I believe He exists, you ask? Because we can’t detect Him!”

“Duh” indeed…

Now, there are other arguments about God having proved positive effects on people's lives, but thats different from probability argument.
Of course, it’s a different argument. “Proved positive effects” would mean that this God which you have defined as undetectable now has detectable effects on people.

Topic's author
#100
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
I believe in an undetectable God. Why do I believe He exists, you ask? Because we can’t detect Him
This is just strawman.

Of course, it’s a different argument. “Proved positive effects” would mean that this God which you have defined as undetectable now has detectable effects on people
Well, there are many proved positive effects happening. In fact, even if God didnt exist, it would be very beneficial to believe in God. This is a different topic, but related to belief in God.
#101
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,922
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
This is just strawman.
No, because undetectability is the central basis for your “proof.”

Well, there are many proved positive effects happening. In fact, even if God didnt exist, it would be very beneficial to believe in God. This is a different topic, but related to belief in God.
Sure, but none of this has anything to do with the topic of your own thread or anything I wrote. Focus.
Topic's author
#102
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
No, because undetectability is the central basis for your “proof.”
Its not the only premise, so thats just strawman.

Sure, but none of this has anything to do with the topic of your own thread or anything I wrote. Focus
You clearly expressed complain about my probability argument, and now you are trying to return to the argument you complained about. So what is your goal here? If you dont want probability argument, and you dont want other arguments, then you dont want any arguments.
#103
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,922
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
So, to sum up again, you have established that something undefined other than it being undetectable has a greater than 0% chance of existing. This deserves recognition of some sort:




Topic's author
#104
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
to sum up again, you have established that something undefined other than it being undetectable has a greater than 0% chance of existing
That would be your strawman, yes.

#105
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,922
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
And this would be your strawman:

#106
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,705
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
In honor of cristo71 I would like to list the top 12 Pilot Traits

The 12 Pilot Personality Traits:
  1. Physically and mentally healthy
  2. Reality based
  3. Self-sufficient
  4. Difficulty trusting anyone to do a job as well as themselves
  5. Suspicious
  6. Intelligent but not intellectual
  7. They like “toys”
  8. Good at taking things apart and putting them back together
  9. Concrete, practical, linear thinkers rather than abstract, philosophical, or theoretical.
  10. More analytical than emotional.
  11. Reality-oriented
  12. Goal-oriented

Topic's author
#107
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
If you dont want to make arguments here, that is your choice.
#108
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,731
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You failed to address the last question I asked, a trend I've noticed. Everytime you are faced with a question that would expose your absurdity you ignore it. Here, I'll try again:

Proposition X: "God is both a god and not a god (at the same time in the same sense)".

Question: is Proposition X possible? Yes or No?

Then prove it without using logic. Go
If I dont need logic, it is already proved then with no need for me to prove it.
Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't and you know you can't, so you just proclaim yourself above it. Sums up your entire argument.

Why is that a problem?
Its a problem for you, because if you hold position that "A proves A" is a valid form of reasoning, then God is proved by merely saying "God proves God". And if you hold position that something can be proved by simply not being questioned, then me not questioning God would prove God.
This is not an answer to my question. You're attempting to reflect by pointing out what you perceive to be the flaws in my construct. I'm asking about yours

I'll go ahead and address this nonsense, then we can get back to the question I asked you.

A proves A has never been my position. If you bothered to read what I said, I pointed out that logic can neither be proved nor disproved, because any attempt to do either requires the usage and therefore validity of it to be assumed at the outset.

So no I'm not actually trying to use logic to prove logic, I'm explaining to you why the position that logic needs to be proved is absurd and necessarily self defeating.  And no, not questioning something can't prove that something, that's even dumber.

So you understand?

This problem of logic cannot be solved in any way, and many philosophers spent their entire life trying to solve problem of logic being entirely circular. 

Its same problem with basic definitions. In the end, they all must end up in a circle, because you cant define all words infinitely.
Again... Why is circular reasoning a problem?

You are the one asserting it as a problem, so tell us what you are pointing to that you see as problematic.
Topic's author
#109
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
I pointed out that logic can neither be proved nor disproved,
Oh, so logic is just like God there. Except that God doesnt need logic to exist, but all logic does need God.

any attempt to do either requires the usage and therefore validity of it to be assumed at the outset.
So you have to use logic to prove logic now? 

Why is circular reasoning a problem?
It is only a problem for your position there. If you accept it as valid, then I can use it to prove God. If you reject it as valid, then you cant even prove logic. It is only your case which suffers from this though.
Topic's author
#110
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
I'm explaining to you why the position that logic needs to be proved is absurd and necessarily self defeating
Logic either can be proved or cannot be. 3rd option doesnt exist. Which one of these is it?

Topic's author
#111
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
If we follow same line of reasoning there, then non-logic cannot be disproved either. It cannot be disproved with logic because logic doesnt apply to it by own definition, and it cannot be disproved with non-logic. However, unlike non-logic, logic is completely self-contradictive on its own. This is because in debate, we try and prove claims. However, you cannot prove "A=A" in any way. Any attempt to prove it fails. And that is whole logic failing. In order to prove "A=A" in one place, you must assume it is already true in other place. There is no explanation for what causes "A=A". There is no any way to prove "A=A". That is the basis of all logic being unproved. The only way to try and prove it is by using it, which requires it to already be true in order to prove it true.
This is circular, where

" "A = A" proves that "A=A" ".

In simple terms, it is not possible to prove the first claim which all logic depends upon.
#112
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,731
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
God doesnt need logic to exist, but all logic does need God
This is not only nothing more than a bold assertion you have done nothing to prove, it is also unprovable because it is completely incoherent.

God is (in concept) a powerful being. A powerful being having the ability to create anything can only make sense if we presuppose the laws of logic, yet there would be no laws prior to him creating anything.

You might as well tell me a triangle can have 5 sides (oh that's right you never answered that question either).

any attempt to do either requires the usage and therefore validity of it to be assumed at the outset.
So you have to use logic to prove logic now? 
No. Tired of holding your hand. Read the above, apply the English language correctly and try again.

Why is circular reasoning a problem?
It is only a problem for your position there.
And I asked you why it's a problem for yours. I even went on a whole rant telling you that I don't care what you think is a problem for my position because I am asking you about yours. Naturally, because you are so brazenly dishonest you can't just answer the question.

This is what presuppositionalism is, it's not a good faith intellectual discussion, it's a game. Not interested, answer the question or go away.

Logic either can be proved or cannot be. 3rd option doesnt exist. Which one of these is it?
Your question is definitionally incoherent. Proving anything is a product of logic. You cannot apply proof to logic itself. Like I said over and over again, it's presumed at the outset. That is the only way it can be used, and denying that is self contradictory.

None of this btw applies to a god. You can claim it so all day long, you're just talking to yourself.

you cannot prove "A=A" in any way. Any attempt to prove it fails. And that is whole logic failing
Great job, you just assumed logic is valid in order to argue that logic itself fails.

This is literally the stupidest argument one can make.
Topic's author
#113
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
you just assumed logic is valid in order to argue that logic itself fails
Thats how reasoning works. You apply a claim to reveal contradictions. Logic according to its own principles cannot contain contradictions, yet it does. Thus, logic fails according to its own principles.
#114
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,731
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Thus, logic fails
And yet you had to accept logic as valid in order to reach your own conclusion.

If you don't see how self defeating your position is you are beyond help.
Topic's author
#115
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 735
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Double_R
And yet you had to accept logic as valid in order to reach your own conclusion
This is how contradictions are found. You assume (not accept, but assume) something as true to see if it is consistent with itself or known facts. Now again, I dont reject logic. Thats your strawman of my case. I merely recognize that logic cannot work on its own. Your case is that logic can work on its own. But that means you have to use circular logic to prove logic, which is a logical fallacy. Thats the whole problem of your case. You cannot prove logic without using logic itself. The whole existence of logic in your case is completely unproved. Logical laws, such as "A=A" here, cannot in any way be proved. And that is the crucial problem here.

"A = A" is the logical law which must be true if logic is to be true. But it cannot be proved true in any way using logic itself, because whole logic depends on it and cannot be used to prove it at the same time.

So again, the problem cannot be solved. Law of identity itself cannot be proved to be true. So when you enter a debate here saying "Law of identity is true", it is not possible to prove that claim, because the proof already depends on that claim to be true and uses it itself. Its same as saying "truth exists". That claim is not possible to prove without using truth. And "truth proves that truth exists" is about as valid as saying "God proves that God exists" claim.

So again, in your case, law of identity proves that law of identity exists.

Thats a logical fallacy within logic itself. Logic is wrong according to its own laws when applied, hence contradiction.

If we say "A = A", then another law follows directly: "Claims can either be true or not true".

This is true tautology per law of identity, because "truth = truth", and thus "not truth =/= truth". We cannot say that "truth = not truth", because not truth is different from truth and then truth wouldnt be truth (truth =/= truth) and law of identity wouldnt be followed.

So these claims follow:
1. Claim must be true or not true.
2. "Law of identity exists" is a claim
3. "Law of identity exists" can only be true or not true.
4. To prove claim true would require proof which exists independently of the claim.
5. Things independent of Law of identity would be non-logic by definition.
6. Thus, only non-logic can prove logic.
#116
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,731
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Logical laws, such as "A=A" here, cannot in any way be proved. And that is the crucial problem here.
You still don't get it.

A=A is not subject to proof, because A=A is not a claim. It is a prerequisite for intelligible thought.

The very concept of A being what it is and not being what it is not applies to every concept imaginable, including the concept of proof itself. So in order to ask for proof of anything you are already accepting at the outset that A=A. Asking me to prove something to you that you already accept is just plain stupid and/or dishonest.

Here's the summary of this debate; My position is that logic comes before anything else. Your position is that god comes first, then logic follows because God and only God can create logic (why logic is subject to a necessary creator but God is not is beyond me, but that's a topic for another day).

Your problem is that if God comes before logic, then God must be outside of logic. So A=A does not apply to God. In other words... God is not God. If A=A is not true, then God is a rock. God is a flag pole. God is October. God both exists and God does not exist. God is both the creator of logic and not the creator of logic.

So when you suggest that anything proves a God not subject to logic, you're necessarily wrong because if God isn't bound to being whatever he is then there isn't anything there to be conceptualized in the first place. That is not a probable concept, that's just a rhetorical jumbled mess of meaninglessness. Your conclusion is therefore, by definition, incomprehensible, making it... Impossible to prove.

#117
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,399
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Well, there are many proved positive effects happening. In fact, even if God didnt exist, it would be very beneficial to believe in God. This is a different topic, but related to belief in God.
Pascals Wager is that beneficial argument.
Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument suggesting that it's rational to believe in God, even if there's no proof of his existence, because the potential rewards of belief (eternal life) outweigh the potential losses (finite inconveniences of believing) if God does exist. It's a form of pragmatic argument, focusing on the practical consequences of belief rather than on providing evidence for it.