Can logic be discounted as a sole proof of god?
Offline
Is it true to say that god cannot be proven using logical constructions like Godel's ontological argument (which frankly gives me the shits) with it's annoying modal logic?
The reason I raise this is that out there in fairyland theists have a strong propensity for running to philosophical or logical arguments in support of their invisible friend. All our discussions with clever theists inevitably drill down to the point where they ask the question: "And what was before the quantum foam?" then blithely insert their god into the gap.
Another painful argument is Aquinas' cosmological argument and its modern variations which insists not only that there be a starting point to the universe pre-BB, but that this starting point which necessarily must happen outside the universe (unless we're just expanding and inflating endlessly) is something we can comprehend and talk about from the bubble of this particular reality.
You would assume any discussion that bumps into cosmology is essentially fruitless - or I would anyway. We can make reasoned guesses and nothing more.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
I've never seen a formulation of the cosmological or ontological arguments which did not resort to question begging. So I'd say there're fairly major logical problems with the both arguments. Also, two further fallacies exist for the ontological argument: first is special pleading, and second, in most ontological arguments is the bare assertion that god would continue to exist after creating the universe.
The ontological argument is further hobbled by bare assertion. I think it is refuted quite handily by David Hume's observation that something must necessarily exist only when its nonexistence results in contradiction. As the nonexistence of god does not result in contradiction, the ontological argument does not establish the necessity of god. Or, as they said back in Hume's day, it suffers from Epic Fail.
The transcendental argument for god (which you didn't mention, but eXnihilO is attempting over in this thread) also suffers from either special pleading or begging the question.
Those two fallacies seem to be common in arguments for god.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
All that logic can do is establish whether some conclusion is or is not consistent with the premises.
So, as Nigel says, you can only prove God purely by logic if you can prove his non-existence would lead to a contradiction, AND you still need to establish that your other assumptions/premises are correct.
About the only thing you can say logically about God purely from the definition of God is that He is contradictory, from most interpretations of ideas like causation ( => infinite regress), or the omnimax attributes.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
To sum up: Logic without evidence is playing
withby yourself.I don't think arguments for god will ever be anything more than endless tautologies. Whatever scientists come up with to explain a phenomenon, the theist can always say "And that's how god did it. You're just proving how wonderful god is." The perpetual god of the gaps...