Since everyone likes philosophical arguments for gods existence...

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Here is one that I'm sure everyone will enjoy.

1) If god exists then it is possible god exists in all possible states.
2) All possible states include states where god is said not to exist or be present.
3) If god exists in all possible states even where god isn't present.
4) Then the lack of presence doesn’t exclude the existence of god.
5) Therefore, god exists.

 

[Skwim]

1) If god exists then it is possible god exists in all possible states.

Employing "possible," as in modal logic, is equivalent to the statement "It is not necessary that god exists in all possible states."

2) All possible states include states where god is said not to exist or be present."

Who cares what is said? Might want to rephrase this as; "All possible states include states where god does not exist."

3-4) If god exists in all possible states even where god isn't present then the lack of presence doesn’t exclude the existence of god.

This violates the law of non-contradiction: Given a statement and its opposite, both cannot be true.

5)Therefore, god exists.

Nope. Doesn't follow at all.

 

[Copernicus]

If you are going to try to prove God's existence by this kind of argument, then make sure to construct an argument that does not also apply to prove the existence of other mythical beings, e.g. elves, fairies, Santa Claus, etc. Even if your logic were valid (which it is not), there is nothing about God that would necessitate his existence and not that of unicorns and Paul Bunyan.

 

[Alceste]

Here is one that I'm sure everyone will enjoy.

1) If god exists then it is possible god exists in all possible states.
2) All possible states include states where god is said not to exist or be present.
3) If god exists in all possible states even where god isn't present.
4) Then the lack of presence doesn’t exclude the existence of god.
5) Therefore, god exists.

If God does not exist, then it is impossible that God exists in any possible state.
Any possible state includes states where God is said to exist.
If God does not exist in any possible state, then the lack of presence excludes the existence of God.
Therefore, God does not exist.

And if wishes were fishes, I'd eat like a queen!

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Employing "possible," as in modal logic, is equivalent to the statement "It is not necessary that god exists in all possible states."

Who cares what is said? Might want to rephrase this as; "All possible states include states where god does not exist."

Either way it doesn't' matter. Because I have done it both ways already.

This violates the law of non-contradiction: Given a statement and its opposite, both cannot be true.

Nope. Doesn't follow at all.

Yeah, nice try. But you might to try reading it again.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

If you are going to try to prove God's existence by this kind of argument, then make sure to construct an argument that does not also apply to prove the existence of other mythical beings, e.g. elves, fairies, Santa Claus, etc. Even if your logic were valid (which it is not), there is nothing about God that would necessitate his existence and not that of unicorns and Paul Bunyan.

I'm not talking about unicorns. I could create another argument if you wish for unicorns however.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

If God does not exist, then it is impossible that God exists in any possible state.
Any possible state includes states where God is said to exist.
If God does not exist in any possible state, then the lack of presence excludes the existence of God.
Therefore, God does not exist.

And if wishes were fishes, I'd eat like a queen!

Well you might not eat much because im not wishing for anything. You would be a not-so-well-fed queen!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Here is one that I'm sure everyone will enjoy.

1) If god exists then it is possible god exists in all possible states.
2) All possible states include states where god is said not to exist or be present.
3) If god exists in all possible states even where god isn't present.
4) Then the lack of presence doesn’t exclude the existence of god.
5) Therefore, god exists.

A variation of Anselm's Proof and just as logically flawed.

 

[Copernicus]

Sandy is right on the money. Basically, you can't define God or anything else into existence. If these kinds of arguments worked, then I would start working on a logical argument that would raise the balance in my bank account.

 

[Skwim]

Either way it doesn't' matter. Because I have done it both ways already.


Yeah, nice try. But you might to try reading it again.

Sorry, but saying that you understand what you don't doesn't make it so.

 

[Alceste]

Well you might not eat much because im not wishing for anything. You would be a not-so-well-fed queen!

You may not be, but this argument is. It's wishing God into existence. Trying to, anyway.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

So just out of curiosity, what is it you people have a problem with? The last sentence (5)?

1)If god exists then it is possible god exists in all possible states.
2)All possible states include states where god isn’t present.
3)If god exists in all possible states even when god isn’t present
4)Then the lack of presence doesn’t exclude the existence of god


Even without the last sentence I don't see any problems with this.

 

[Willamena]

So just out of curiosity, what is it you people have a problem with? The last sentence (5)?

1)If god exists then it is possible god exists in all possible states.
2)All possible states include states where god isn’t present.
3)If god exists in all possible states even when god isn’t present
4)Then the lack of presence doesn’t exclude the existence of god


Even without the last sentence I don't see any problems with this.

To many problems to even begin to get into. :/

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

To many problems to even begin to get into. :/

Nah, I just think there are a lot of very illogical people on this forum. That are more opinionated than logical.

 

[Skwim]

Nah, I just think there are a lot of very illogical people on this forum. That are more opinionated than logical.

Perhaps, but other than yourself, none have yet posted in this thread.

 

[Willamena]

States of affairs do not exist independently of the thought of their subject or the fact of their subject. They are abstract. The possbility of (something) in a state has the identical subject, though negated, as the possibility of (not that thing) in that state. There is no state of that thing that would allow the subject to be absent.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Perhaps, but other than yourself, none have yet posted in this thread.

:spit::biglaugh:That is funny. I'm glad someone could make me laugh.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

States of affairs do not exist independently of the thought of their subject or the fact of their subject. They are abstract. The possbility of (something) in a state has the identical subject, though negated, as the possibility of (not that thing) in that state. There is no state of that thing that would allow the subject to be absent.

Yeah, I didn't understand any of that.

All it is saying is the lack of presence doesn't mean god does not exist. Not that hard to understand really.

 

[Skwim]

:spit::biglaugh:That is funny. I'm glad someone could make me laugh.

Ah yes, the face-saving laugh. Haven't seen that around here in quite awhile.

 

[dust1n]

Here is one that I'm sure everyone will enjoy.

1) If god exists then it is possible god exists in all possible states.

To accept this premise we would first have to accept god to exist.

2) All possible states include states where god is said not to exist or be present.
3) If god exists in all possible states even where god isn't present.
4) Then the lack of presence doesn’t exclude the existence of god.
5) Therefore, god exists.

Just so we can prove God.



So the argument is circular, among many other things.