If anyone could prove the existence of God, there would be very few atheists. — Hyper

There are very few atheists.
Therefore, God exists.

:naughty:

If anyone could prove the existence of God, there would be very few atheists. — Hyper

If God exists, then God does not exist.
God exists.
Therefore God does not exist.
:nerd:

Ergo God does not exist.

If God does not exist, then God exists.
God does not exist.
Therefore God exists. :smirk:

That isn't how that works. I could say if p, then q. Just because q is true doesn't mean p is also true, just that if p is true, then q is also true. These statements don't work when flipped. I am saying that most atheists wouldn't be atheists if God could be proven to exist.

One is the actual word and one is not.

Words represent objects and entities in the world, but words themselves are not representation.

So, you just confirmed that you only proved the word "god" and not God itself.

My definition of God was "God" in the word, and it is God itself.

Which is a contradiction.

If you accept God itself is a being with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, then it is not a contradiction. In the world of God itself under this definition, even contradiction is truth.

You need to accept there are many different definitions of God. Depending on the definition, proof methods will differ.

What is your definitions of God?

, could you please explain this line of reasoning? I am genuinely confused. How do you have a logic statement that contradicts itself?

If you accept God itself is a being with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, then it is not a contradiction. In the world of God itself under this definition, even contradiction is truth. — Corvus

If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid.

It was just to say that logic with contradiction doesn't give us truth. It falls into the circular nonsense.

If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid. — Relativist

If you accept the definition of God with omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, then your omnipotent God can make contradiction into truth. He can do anything. Miracles, magic, afterlife and heaven and hell, resurrections are all possible and truths.

If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid. — Relativist

If God is omnipotent, then God can turn contradiction into truth.
God is omnipotent. (under the definition)
Therefore God can turn contradiction into truth.

It may not be a true argument, but it certainly looks valid.

If God is omnipotent, then God can turn contradiction into truth.
God is omnipotent. (under the definition)
Therefore God can turn contradiction into truth. — Corvus

Your conclusion contradicts the law of non-contradiction. That makes it a fallacy, even though it has a valid form.

The problem is your first premise: there's no basis for claiming omnipotence implies God can do this. William Lane Craig (for example) asserts that omnipotence entails the ability to do everything that is logically possible.

There's also a pragmatic problem with your first premise: in deductive logic, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Your premise implies conclusions are not necessarily true, because there's always a background contingency on God's will. This invalidates the use of deductive logic - so the argument is self-defeating.

Just to be clear the concept of omnipotent (and omniscient) gods was invented relatively recently. Thus the majority of gods are not omnipotent.

Your conclusion contradicts the law of non-contradiction. That makes it a fallacy, even though it has a valid form. — Relativist

The point was just to demonstrate how the valid logical arguments can have unsound conclusion, and not useful in practicality.

Validity in logic doesn't mean much apart from the fact that it proves the conclusion was followed from the premises, be it sound or unsound.

Thus the majority of gods are not omnipotent. — LuckyR

Why is it the case? How potent are they? or are they potent at all?

There's also a pragmatic problem with your first premise: in deductive logic, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Your premise implies conclusions are not necessarily true, because there's always a background contingency on God's will. This invalidates the use of deductive logic - so the argument is self-defeating. — Relativist

You were quite correct to point out the unsound premise, and rejected it. Even if the argument was valid, it is unsound. The conclusion is self-defeating therefore is a nonsense.

Huh? You might consider becoming more familiar with a topic before posting authoritatively on it.

It was a possible scenario post when you chose the definition of God with omnipotence. It was not my own definition of God. Remember my definition of God was God in the word God? You seem to be too prejudging without knowing what is going on in the posts.

You still have not given out what your definition of God is.

It was a possible scenario post when you chose the definition of God with omnipotence. It was not my own definition of God.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario".

From a functional standpoint god definitions are essentially subjective, since each religion, and each worshipper within the religion, gets to decide what THEIR god means to them, essentially their "definition" of god, that you are focused upon. Just as we all decide what we find beautiful, we all get to decide what our god is or isn't like.

Since subjectivity exists in human minds, not in the objective universe, "proving" subjective entities "exist" is possible, yet meaningless. I'm convinced beauty exists, so does my neighbor, BUT what I find beautiful is totally different from what he does. We're both "right", yet being so correct doesn't further anyone's understanding of anything. It's just a word game, leading nowhere.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario". — LuckyR

Your claim here is ambiguous. You seem to be saying if something was invented by humans recently, then it is not something. Is it correct? Could you justify your premise and argument? It seems unsound and not even valid, and is discarded as nonsense.

I am not sure what God you are talking about, but if we talk about the Christianity, then omnipotence of God is evidently implied in the Bible describing the creation of the world and humans by the God. God can also allow people to resurrect after their deaths ... etc. It sounds too naive to say that omnipotence of God is recently invented by humans, therefore not omnipotence. It screams a loud contradiction here.

Unless you are talking about a woman you met recently as your God, it is quite reasonable to assume religious Gods are omnipotent.

From a functional standpoint god definitions are essentially subjective, since each religion, and each worshipper within the religion, gets to decide what THEIR god means to them, essentially their "definition" of god, that you are focused upon. Just as we all decide what we find beautiful, we all get to decide what our god is or isn't like. — LuckyR

This is not making sense either. Religion is not something that you take up, and fantasise about the God. If you decided to take up a religion, then you would be expected to read up on the principles and traditions of the religion. and study the objective definition of God, and be knowledgeable about the God.

Once you take up a religion, then that would be your religion for the rest of your life accepting all the code of conducts, principles and definition of the God. Having done all that, you wouldn't be going out comparing your God with the other religious Gods criticising, judging or doubting them.

Since subjectivity exists in human minds, not in the objective universe, "proving" subjective entities "exist" is possible, yet meaningless. I'm convinced beauty exists, so does my neighbor, BUT what I find beautiful is totally different from what he does. We're both "right", yet being so correct doesn't further anyone's understanding of anything. It's just a word game, leading nowhere. — LuckyR

But from non religious philosophical point of view on religion, we could still study the different religions on their definition of Gods, principles, the religious claims etc from the academic angle investigating logically and metaphysically. It is the oldest human mental and metaphysical tradition and phenomenon.

To say that God is a subjective entity, impossible to prove, therefore meaningless sounds meaningless and shallow thinking.

Which god are you talking about? I am cool with logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, but I do not believe the god who walked with Adam and Eve in the Graden of Eden is believable.

That's a red herring. I'm referring to your definition, not someone's else's definition. You're arguing that God is the word God and not the word God, which is a contradiction. The evidence of this is by your demonstration, differentiating between "God" and "the word God." So, how about you defend your argument instead of presenting a red herring.

You're arguing that God is the word God and not the word God, which is a contradiction. — night912

You seem to be confused with God and the word God. They are not the same. God is the god, and his residence is in the word "God". You are not able to distinguish between the two i.e. God and the word God. They are different concept.

God manifests into the physical space and time whenever it is called by the word God. We know God by the word, but when we make up the sentences with the word God, it is not the same concept. The word God then become a metaphysical entity in the sentence where it instantiates.