Analysis of Hartshorne's (1962) Proof of the Existence of God

[1123581321]

We simply cannot, will not, prove that a 'god' exists. it cannot be done, that is (if you believe in an afterlife), until we die. That is why all religions rely on faith. I believe in an 'afterlife' simply because there is nothing that proves there is not one. Some people who have out of body experiences where they die and are brought back say that they have seen a 'heaven' (or hell). others have not. that is a matter of time. i say, even if there is no God or afterlife, i like to think that there is, because how did the universe begin? we say big bang, but how did it come about? was there even a beginning? how did we get here? do we have a soul, or are we just physical beings? until these questions are answered, we will never know what lies beyond this world.

Fibonacci

 

[phoenixthoth]

Hartshorne's (1962) proof of the existence of god:

(~) = not, (v) = or, (&) = and, (->) = implies (<->) = equivalence,
[] = necessarily, <> = possibly, (=>) = strict implication,

(p => q) =df [](p -> q)

<>p =df ~[]~p.

g = god exists.


The argument is thus:

1. g => []g (premise)
2. []g v ~[]g
3. ~[]g => []~[]g
4. []g v []~[]g
5. []~[]g => []~g
6. []g v []~g
7. <>g (premise)
8. []g
9. []g => g
10. g


This argument is valid but not sound.
It proves that: ((g => []g) & <>g) -> g, is necessarily true, ..nothing else.

The argument is true for any proposition p.

1. g => []g
7. <>g
:.
10. g


A. (g => []g) <-> [](g -> []g)
B. [](g -> []g) <-> (<>g -> []g),

C. (g => []g) <-> (<>g -> []g)

Note: A, B, C, are theorems of modal logic (S5).

Because of C, the argument becomes:

1. <>g -> []g
7. <>g
:.8. []g

8. []g
9. []g -> g
:.10. g


If we substitute ~g for g, we get the atheists' side of it.

1a. <>~g -> []~g
7a. <>~g
:. 8a. []~g

8a. []~g
9a. []~g -> ~g
:.
10a. ~g.


This argument has two other equivalent variations.

1. [](g -> []g) & <>g .-> g
2. [](<>g -> g) & <>g .-> g
3. (<>g -> []g) & <>g .-> g

Once we realize that: [](p -> []p) <-> (<>p -> []p),
and [](<>p -> p) <-> (<>p -> []p), we can see that each
argument is equivalent to 3.

Hartshorne was wrong to assert that this argument proves that g (god exists) is true.


It seems that Theists need only show that 'God does exists' is possible
in order to prove that it is necessary or that it is true.
And, that Atheists need only to show that 'God does not exists' is possible
in order to prove that it is necessary or that it is true.

Note: <>(god exists) & <>(god does not exist), is contradictory.

What do you think?

Owen

In ternary logic, or fuzzier logics, the conjunction of a statement and its negation is not neccesarily false.

Evo, there is a point. Just as a special case, consider the claim that God created the universe. This is a crossover into physics when it comes to the creation of the universe (if the universe was created). That distinguishes God from faeries and unicorns because if those exist or not, it makes a lot less of a difference.

 

[cronxeh]

And who created god then?

 

[bayan]

I also believe that all these arguments are pointless.

Even though I am not a really exprienced person, and I also believe in God, I do not believe that anyone will ever be able to prove that god exists or it does not exists. (Maybe ecxept unusuall Human beings). How can we prove something that is beoned our knoledge?! I do respect the oppinion of people that do not believe in God. That is humanity after all. other wise we would not have been any diffrent from animals.


Also anyone watched Crossing Over? (the show where some guy talks to goust (Souls))?

If so do you believe it is true? How can some one ever prove that goust exist using Mahematics? nothing is ever usable for all! That includes Maths, You simply cannot use maths to prove the existence of life.!

 

[bayan]

Ahh! one more thing before I finish.

The scientists of our age are probably try too hard to come with a brake through in an invention. Why do they create thiories to cover their existing problems? Like tring to figure out something about the "String Theory" and creating antigravitons to comunicate with creatures from other universes! What are the chanses that the creatures from other universes will response to it?

I am not saying that Scientists are wasting their time because everything starts with theories, all I am saying is instead of trying to make theories for everything and making the world full of thiories they maybe should try and give proves to their existing thiories!

 

[Selfless]

And who created god then?

We did! "I am" is proof of God.

A better question; what came before God?

I have been playing with a simple mathematical equation concerning God.

(2=1) or (1+1=1)

1= one thing or true one
2= illusion of 1+1 or one thing + one thing
one thing = one thing

If, one thing + one thing, is still one thing, then two of one thing is (=) still one thing or any number of one thing is (=) still one thing.

Think of the Holy Trinity as a example of this theorem.

The illusion is that one thing added to one thing is now another thing. We hold up one thing and add "another" thing calling it two. Which is true, when each thing is different, which creates diautonomy. However, when we add the true one to itself, then we still have the true one.

I know some may say, 1+0 = 1 is a better model. Even propose, Zero is God. I just think a triad of One is a more interesting way to look at it.

I am not mathematically incline, show me my false logic.

I propose our true nature is one, that any other construct is an illusion.

 

[medium]

Another proof for the existence of the Ultimate power of the Universe might be realized using the symbolic language of, the "experience" approach. I will of course conceed that there is a time for the proof by faith approach. But there will come a time when one doesn't need faith when experience will do. Something like the difference between a hypothesis and a law, if I'm correct. Laying that aside, the proof of experience suggest that we have senses on many levels, therefore there must be something necessasarily for the senses to sense. Some it could be argued, have the ability to sense God. Others not so well. The argument therefore really stems in one trying to explain and or prove to the other what he is or is not sensing. There, in this view is no question that something exist. What that something is though seems to me more of a literary problem than anything else. Please comment>...MEDIUM...>

 

[moving finger]

Another proof for the existence of the Ultimate power of the Universe might be realized using the symbolic language of, the "experience" approach. I will of course conceed that there is a time for the proof by faith approach. But there will come a time when one doesn't need faith when experience will do. Something like the difference between a hypothesis and a law, if I'm correct. Laying that aside, the proof of experience suggest that we have senses on many levels, therefore there must be something necessasarily for the senses to sense. Some it could be argued, have the ability to sense God. Others not so well. The argument therefore really stems in one trying to explain and or prove to the other what he is or is not sensing. There, in this view is no question that something exist. What that something is though seems to me more of a literary problem than anything else. Please comment>...MEDIUM...>

Hmmmmm. And I have a well developed sense of BS... I guess that means that BS necessarily exists

MF

 

[loseyourname]

Hmmmmm. And I have a well developed sense of BS... I guess that means that BS necessarily exists

MF

There's something to what he's saying. There's no denying that people have religious experiences. They're well documented and there even seems to be a genetic predisposition to them. The question then is what does this mean? What is behind the experience? Is it simply a refined case of temporal lobe epilepsy resulting in feelings of profundity and connectedness, or is there really something external that is being sensed?

 

[lawtonfogle]

God must exist or else all we do is worth less for all will become pure enthropy in the end, if God exist in the way He says He does, then he is perfect and can change all enthropy into order without creating enthropy.

Can i prove to you He exist, no.
I accept the fact.

If one person was to think of every possiblibilty then one must be right.

Right now ask yourself, is what you do wrothless or for a greater cause

 

[moving finger]

There's something to what he's saying. There's no denying that people have religious experiences. They're well documented and there even seems to be a genetic predisposition to them. The question then is what does this mean? What is behind the experience?

The question is a valid one (ie is my personal religious experience directly caused by some outside agency?), but the conclusion that "if I can sense something then that something must be real" is not. That is the point I was trying to make.

In the absence of scientifically verifiable evidence one must take a leap of faith, and that is not something that can be usefully debated here.

MF

 

[moving finger]

God must exist or else all we do is worth less for all will become pure enthropy in the end

This is exactly the kind of "logic" that I was referring to in my previous post.
This is simply a statement of faith or belief, not a logical or rational argument.

MF

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is exactly the kind of "logic" that I was referring to in my previous post.
This is simply a statement of faith or belief, not a logical or rational argument.

MF

ok, where does this logic fail, what have i not read that says the enthropy of the universe is decreases

even if we all end up in a sungularity, and another BB happens, then all we have done will again be worthless. For everything that happened before the BB (if there was one) does not change what happens after. the sigularity, if it does decrease enthropy, must undo all we or anyone/thing has done to decrease enthropy, for in all my knowledge, no matter what we do, it causes enthropy

 

[moving finger]

ok, where does this logic fail, what have i not read that says the enthropy of the universe is decreases

even if we all end up in a sungularity, and another BB happens, then all we have done will again be worthless. For everything that happened before the BB (if there was one) does not change what happens after. the sigularity, if it does decrease enthropy, must undo all we or anyone/thing has done to decrease enthropy, for in all my knowledge, no matter what we do, it causes enthropy

The logic does not "fail", but your argument is on a basis of faith and belief (ie the belief that there must be some kind of "teleological purpose" to human existence) rather than one of science.

what would it take for your existence to be "worth" something in your eyes?

and why would it necessarily make any difference anyway?

MF

 

[lawtonfogle]

what i am saying and that you agree is that in the end of the universe, what we do will not affect the end of the universel. If there is no God, then why do we live for the better of society and eventually the universe. If there is no God, then why do not we do what we want to. Why obey laws.

In the end, all matter would have gone into to black holes and come out as energy, or will have hit the 'event horizon' of the universe and turn into to energy.

This energy will then become heat ovet time, because heat is the most 'enthropic' of the energies.

This heat will then spread out over an infinite space, becoming infinitily small amounts
1/(10^100)^(10^100) ( goggle plex) above absolute zero.

or all space will go through the 'big crunch' and becom a singlarity, which in anything before the singularity will not affact the singlarity.

So in the end, all we do will not affect how the universe ends, unless their is a God.

 

[honestrosewater]

Your argument is basically that 1) life having "purpose" (whatever that may mean) is equivalent to God existing, and 2) life has purpose, therefore God exists. (1) and (2) aren't necessarily true, so you either blindly accept them or find justifications for believing them.

 

[moving finger]

what i am saying and that you agree is that in the end of the universe, what we do will not affect the end of the universel. If there is no God, then why do we live for the better of society and eventually the universe. If there is no God, then why do not we do what we want to. Why obey laws.

Have you ever considered the possibility that most of us DO do "what we want to do", and obeying laws is part of "what we want to do"? I suggest that most of us wish to live in a stable, safe and prosperous society which rewards hard work and honesty and punishes extreme anti-social behaviour - and that is one of the reasons we have laws. Our behaviour (at least for the rational free-thinking beings amongst us) also has nothing to do with God (whatever that might be).

In the end, all matter would have gone into to black holes and come out as energy, or will have hit the 'event horizon' of the universe and turn into to energy.

Yes, but I suggest that this is irrelevant to my behaviour. I do what I do not because of any possible final teleological purpose, but because of immediate concerns about my home, family, friends. I would be interested to know if anyone's behaviour is modified by the fact that we might all end up in a black hole at some very distant future date?

This energy will then become heat ovet time, because heat is the most 'enthropic' of the energies.

This heat will then spread out over an infinite space, becoming infinitily small amounts
1/(10^100)^(10^100) ( goggle plex) above absolute zero.

or all space will go through the 'big crunch' and becom a singlarity, which in anything before the singularity will not affact the singlarity.

So in the end, all we do will not affect how the universe ends, unless their is a God.

As I said, my behaviour is not determined in any way by how I think the universe will or will not end. And I doubt that anyone's behaviour is determined by these things.

And as for God... who is that again?
MF

 

[Dark]

The real question is... why do we say these things do not exisit... is it becouse we are afriad of wat really exists

 

[reasonmclucus]

Ahh! one more thing before I finish.

The scientists of our age are probably try too hard to come with a brake through in an invention. Why do they create thiories to cover their existing problems? Like tring to figure out something about the "String Theory" and creating antigravitons to comunicate with creatures from other universes! What are the chanses that the creatures from other universes will response to it?

I am not saying that Scientists are wasting their time because everything starts with theories, all I am saying is instead of trying to make theories for everything and making the world full of thiories they maybe should try and give proves to their existing thiories!

Part of the problem is that many of today's scientists fail to understand the limitations of science if science is to be something other than just another religion/philosophy. For science to have special meaning scientific concepts need to be those concepts which can be verified through repeated experiments and observations.

Verification must be repeatable to insure that initial verification wasn't the result of some factor that wasn't noticed at the time of the original experiment. For example, the controversial subject of cold fusion has had mixed experimental results. This could indicate the results that some obtained occurred for reasons other than cold fusion, for example, perhaps cosmic rays or other undetected radiation in some places but not others caused heating.

The traditional academic discipline of metaphysics has become merged with the science of physics with the word "metaphysics" iteself being used to describe so-called "psychic" phenomena. Metaphysics originally dealt with the basic nature of reality that might not be detectable with scientific instruments. "String theory" is really metaphysics. So is the question of whether light is a wave or a particle or perhaps something else entirely. Empirical science is only concerned about whether the behavior of light can be accurately predicted.

Empirical science theories can be proved. Theories about metaphysics(including the existence of godlike beings) cannot be. Theories about the distant past such as the origin of the universe or biological life on Earth also fall into the category of theories that cannot be proved. Although empirical science might suggest what could have happened but not prove what did happen. Physicists for many years were convinced that fiery gases dominated the initial universe. Recent experiments colliding gold nuclei have raised doubts about that theory.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ap_050419_early_universe.html

 

[reasonmclucus]

The real question is... why do we say these things do not exisit... is it becouse we are afriad of wat really exists

It could be. Certainly the idea of some being more powerful than humans can be a frightening concept, particularly if such a being were to threat humans the way humans treat "dumb animals".

 

[moving finger]

It could be. Certainly the idea of some being more powerful than humans can be a frightening concept

on the other hand, to some humans it seems that the "non-existence" of a being more powerful than humans is a frightening concept.

MF

 

[Billy T]

...Empirical science theories can be proved. ...

"can be confirmed." (and never clearly disconfirmed/ violated.) would be better than "proven." As I agree with all else you said, I bet you agree with this suggest. (Poppers "falsification concept".)

 

[reasonmclucus]

"can be confirmed." (and never clearly disconfirmed/ violated.) would be better than "proven." As I agree with all else you said, I bet you agree with this suggest. (Poppers "falsification concept".)

"Confirmed" would be a better word.

 

[Moses]

Well, hoping not hi-jacking the thread...

I have a couple of proofs about the existense of the Universe-Creater aka God. However, before i start goin 'long way' on them, i want to see if people here agree whether infinity does exist or not. [according to mathematicin, it does not exist in reality. However, i will respect other opinions, and i might go with other alternative proofs if the ones i had that depend on infinity won't be acceptable]

Thats my penny before giving my two pennys

 

[LindaGarrette]

Well, hoping not hi-jacking the thread...

I have a couple of proofs about the existense of the Universe-Creater aka God. However, before i start goin 'long way' on them, i want to see if people here agree whether infinity does exist or not. [according to mathematicin, it does not exist in reality. However, i will respect other opinions, and i might go with other alternative proofs if the ones i had that depend on infinity won't be acceptable]

Thats my penny before giving my two pennys

Infinity is a mathematical construct which does not exist in space/time reality.

To prove there is a god, you have to state the hypothesis in a negative form: There is a god because no evidence exists to the contrary. (Like, all crows are black because there is no evidence to the contrary. So if you find one non-black crow, the theory is defenseless.) Since everything is explainable without god, then your theory can't be proven.

Or, you could state the opposite theory: God does not exist because there is no evidence. If there is emperical evidence (intersubjectively verifyable), then there must be a god. The trick is to find evidence that everyone will accept as true, not just hearsay or an opinion.

Good luck :zzz:

 

[Pretender]

First off let me say before I get flamed I am no scholar so now that's out of the way I can speak as freely without sounding like an idiot becuase of my upfront admittance (I have said it first).

please don't mind my rambling on I do that a lot.<--I used to do drugs a lot and I swear I seen god himself appear to me on a lampshade and the holy spirit was above him and his son jesus was on the wall next to him. (right about now I am expecting that pretty much everyone is thinking that this guy is just nuts and you maybe right, but I will never forget that night.)

I am not saying that there is a god but I am also not saying that there isn't.
weird things have happened to me and they were not always of drugs some were before I even started drugs. I never started getting high and drinking until I was 18. I've had a nun pick me out of a crowd of people and only me that I needed to come to church that night.
EDITED:too crazy to say

I got myself so freaked out at times that I am no longer smoking drugs, but the damage may have already been done.

I should have named myself confused rather than pretender.

How do we know that the bible was nothing more than a play?
just asking

what came first the term good and evil or god and devil? <--Doesn't god and good look an awful lot alike? and evil and devil? was the god and devil term made from good and evil? I know I can get answers here it seems that everyone here speaks as though they have the mind of a genius.


(I thought of this when I used to do drugs)<-glad I quit
a lot of things have popped up in my head over the years such as santa claus. lol
a little thing they say about santa which was what I was told as a child was there was a guy named saint nick who actually went house to house and gave a gift anonymously,is that true I think so. The christmas that we see was created by the commercial industry so that more money can be made for the rich.
SANTA take the middle letter and move it to the end you have SATAN
Santa has little helpers and I believe they say Satan does
Santa wears a red suit and they say Satan is red
we promise that if our kids are good they will get gifts from santa.
In the bible it says thou shalt not have any other gods before me and yet we are pretty much making our kids pretty much worship him as if he were a god.

Confused about everything.
so if you ask me is there a god? I say yes and he is in everyone. he = it + god = good
and the kingdom of heaven is your body. also don't forget that there is an evil in everyone too, your mind is the universe to your heaven.

 

[Microburst]

God exists in people’s imagination and reality is a relative term. heheheh

 

[reasonmclucus]

To prove there is a god, you have to state the hypothesis in a negative form: There is a god because no evidence exists to the contrary. (Like, all crows are black because there is no evidence to the contrary. So if you find one non-black crow, the theory is defenseless.) Since everything is explainable without god, then your theory can't be proven.

Or, you could state the opposite theory: God does not exist because there is no evidence. If there is emperical evidence (intersubjectively verifyable), then there must be a god. The trick is to find evidence that everyone will accept as true, not just hearsay or an opinion.

In court, the prosecution sometimes explains evidence by saying it is "consistent with" the accused having committed the crime. That doesn't mean that the evidence couldn't also be consistent with some other hypothesis.

If the universe had always existed that would be consistent with there being no god. Having the universe begin with a supernatural event such as the explosion of a Black Hole would be consistent with the existence of the God of Abraham particularly considering that this explanation was first made in a work attributed to the biblical patriarch Enoch(Secrets of Enoch chapter 25). Enoch describes an invisible object with a fiery light in its "belly" which would be a description of a black hole.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/2enoch01-68.htm

The existence of complex biological life on Earth is portrayed as being consistent with the presence of some Intelligence. However, this Intelligence could be an ET type being rather than a god.

The theory of evolution is sometimes suggested as being consistent with no god, but would actually more consistent with the idea that God created life. The use of slow gradual changes to produce something more complex is the way humans use to produce more complex technology, literary works or computer programs and thus is a method a long lived Intelligence might have used to produce biological life on earth. the probability of this occurring without intervention of an Intelligence would be too low to be possible.

Note: the above explanation of biological life may not be the only possible one. Others might exist which could plausably occur without the intervention of an Intelligence.

 

[infinitesmallness]

hmm

i think that we cannot prove the existence of god for this reason. Science can give us a logical explanation for our questions. religion was started to explain what science could not therefore when science can explain it then religion needs to bck off

 

[JamesU]

How do we know that science is right?

 

[C1ay]

God is an invention of man to explain the things he doesn't understand. He invented the sun god to explain the sun coming up before he learned that it comes up because we go round it. He invented the fire god to explain fire before he understood that it was just the result of heat, fuel and oxygen. Somewhere along the way someone asked how we got here and why and another God was invented to explain it. Where does it end? Now we've got the ID crowd running around saying life is so complicated it must have been designed. It doesn't even rate as junk science.

OT - Hi LG, small world.