Would God's "Necessity" Amount to Proof of God's Existence?

[Kilgore Trout]

Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?

Genesis 38:15-16
When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face. So he turned aside to her by the road, and said, "Here now, let me come in to you"; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said, "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?"

Am I doing this right?

 

[Parsimony]

Are there any purely logical proofs for the existence of things that have turned out to not actually exist?

 

[sayak83]

Unfortunately, a logical proof can be valid while not yet sound. That is, the validity of the proof can be determined logically, but the soundness of it might rely on empirical confirmation.

I voted yes..but with the caveat that the deduction must be both valid and sound, with the axioms unrefutable etc.

 

[Nous]

In modal logic, □P means “It is necessarily P,” and is defined as “it is not possible that not-P”. □P ↔ ¬◊¬P. I can’t understand how the statement “it is necessarily P” does not entail that P exists. If it is true that God is necessary, then it is true that God exists.

 

[columbus]

Are there any purely logical proofs for the existence of things that have turned out to not actually exist?

I think Hoyle had really solid logical evidence for a steady state universe.
He did however happen to be wrong.
Tom

 

[columbus]

This is essentially how I came to my personal form of deism. The reason there is something, rather than nothing, is God.
But I don't consider it theism because it doesn't tell you anything about God. To find out about God we use science.
Tom

 

[Parsimony]

I think Hoyle had really solid logical evidence for a steady state universe.
He did however happen to be wrong.
Tom

He didn't have a purely logical proof of it, though. What he had would have been based on observational evidence that was incomplete.

 

[psychoslice]

Proof for god's existence ?, it just will never happen.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think Hoyle had really solid logical evidence for a steady state universe.
He did however happen to be wrong.

His assumptions were valid based on the observational evidence available at the time. Then more information came in and things were re-assessed, which is how science progresses.
It's difficult to see how that could ever happen with "God" because there is no evidence to start with.

 

[Sunstone]

Proof for god's existence ?, it just will never happen.

That's not the issue here, though.

 

[Sunstone]

Are there any purely logical proofs for the existence of things that have turned out to not actually exist?

Are you looking for empirical evidence in support of the notion that you don't need empirical evidence?

 

[Sunstone]

Are there any purely logical proofs for the existence of things that have turned out to not actually exist?

I suspect that every time a theory has fallen to a "test of the cross" in the history of science, the fallen theory has been one that in some sense was a case of a logical proof for the existence of something that turned out to not actually exist. But tests of the cross are rare.

I also suspect that the history of ether in physics is a case of something that was logically thought necessary to exist but which was shown to be irrelevant by Einstein and others.

 

[Revoltingest]

I say no.
Logic is a wonderful way to deduce conclusions from premises.
Using it to prove gods exist isn't necessarily true though.
If the premises are wrong or not even wrong, then conclusion fails.

Believers should like the fact that disproving the existence of gods
would suffer from the same dependence upon cromulent premises.
It's one of those win-win scenarios.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think that's largely the way it works for many people

You first come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God, an acceptance which is followed by a confirmation, a direct first hand experience, the most compelling evidence possible.

Myself included

 

[prometheus11]

I think that's largely the way it works for many people

You first come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God, an acceptance which is followed by a confirmation, a direct first hand experience, the most compelling evidence possible.

Myself included

That's what Muslims say, yes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that's largely the way it works for many people

You first come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God, an acceptance which is followed by a confirmation, a direct first hand experience, the most compelling evidence possible.

Myself included

My path was different.
I started out an atheist.
Then confirmation (evidence) never came.
But even so, being atheistic was so attractive that I never left.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My path was different.
I started out an atheist.
Then confirmation (evidence) never came.
But even so, being atheistic was so attractive that I never left.

That's not a different path, it's the same one I was on

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not a different path, it's the same one I was on

You're still an atheist too?
Boy, oh boy....I've been making some really bad inferences from your posts lately!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're still an atheist too?
Boy, oh boy....I've been making some really bad inferences from your posts lately!

was!

So I can prove one thing:

My opinion on this is totally unreliable!

 

[Revoltingest]

But I am the unreliablest!