|
From God's inexistence it follows God's existence
|
irichc
2 posts
 author
|
 posted 8/26/2004 9:09:08 AM
 reply
1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.
2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.
3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).
4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.
5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.
Greetings.
Daniel.
Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):
www.miscelaneateologica.tk
|
|
|
Sheriff
Admin
4081 posts
author
|
posted 8/26/2004 11:37:09 AM
reply
K, my friend, it is clear to me that you have not had education in mathematical logic, as your statements simply fall apart.
0. You start declaring "theorems" without first defining your "axioms". In this case you have to first define what "truth" and "God" is, before you can operate this terminology. In your case, you make blatant logically incorrect statements with something everyone has a different opinion about. And discussions like that are nothing more than Meaningless Drivel (so you came to the wrong forum).
1. Assuming that we both agreed on what "truth" means, this statement is mathematically incorrect. A false proposition can lead to anything - either a true, or false statements.
2. There is no proof where a "truth" can guide us. In fact, I recommed you reading Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, that says that "in any mathematical model, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms". So instead of trying to "prove"  your "truthness" to people with scientific methods, theology is much better off concentrating on theological methods. Otherwise they just look funny  
3. Since my statement above, by stating one true "theorem" you do not prove God's existence, as there will be a lot of true and false statement that can not be proven from that, and God is Everything (or Nothing, but I guess this may be a little too deep for ya).
4 and 5 just blatantly meaningless based on the fact that 1,2 and 3 are logically incorrect.
Greetings, Daniel, welcome to our forum.
[Message edited by Sheriff on 8/26/2004 11:42:46 AM]
|
Walker
2573 posts
author
|
posted 8/27/2004 2:19:48 AM
reply
Your words are wise of universe. Amen.
|
Àêàêèé
2424 posts
author
|
posted 8/27/2004 4:03:55 PM
reply
The conslusion of daniels' theory:
"The truth is that Daniel suck big time.  " if it was not true he would not wrote that BS.
|
irichc
2 posts
author
|
posted 9/8/2004 7:33:01 AM
reply
Proving 1).
Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.
We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.
So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2" , all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.
Proving 2).
I.
In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.
If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that “the truth is the truth”, since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.
Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: “the truth is the truth”. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.
NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.
II.
1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.
1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.
1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.
1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.
1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.
1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.
1.2.2. If it has not a first Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.
The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.
Greetings.
Daniel.
Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):
http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk
|
Sheriff
Admin
4081 posts
author
|
posted 9/8/2004 10:14:31 AM
reply
irichc: Proving 1).
Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.
We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.
So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2", all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.
My friend, as mathematitian, I will tell you that what you said above is complete NONSENSE.
A number is not "truth", it is a subject defined by the numbers theory, or a group of "axioms" - statements that we accept without proof as a basis. "+" is a function that defines action on these subjects. In fact, mathematics can choose to define "+" any way it pleases, and it DOES NOT BREAK the theory. For instance, "1+1=3" can be as equally true as "1+1=2" and WILL PRODUCE A TRUE STATEMENT AND A VALID NUMBERS THEORY.
itichc: 1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God
This is NONSENSE. One can just assume that there are unlimited number of True and False statements, and I have no slightest idea what you mean by this statement above
Dude, your statements are just blatantly wrong, from mathematical and logical points of view. #II will not pass a simple evaluation by college sophomore majoring in math.
I don't want to continue this rant as I clearly see you have no understanding of mathematics. As I said earlier, stick to theology, and maybe you'd have a chance of proving something. 
|
|
|
New Topic
