From God's inexistence it follows God's existence

[irichc]

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):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

[Eddier1]

Daniel you are a very confused individual. Your post is full of contradictions, an affront to formal logic and an error in metaphysical speculations.

Getting down to reality and the correct process of reasoning in the empirical world, dialectical logic is the way to proceed correctly. First premise of such logic is that to understand anything one has to be able to point out its significant opposite.

In the parameters of the mind, to entertain the infinite, the omniscient, and ominpotent, all attributes which religionism has ascribed to a "god", the mind must be able to point out the significant opposite to that starting with human understanding itself, i.e., the rational falculty, conscience, and social responsibility inherent to the mind. In this case, the mind must realize its own boundaries or limitations as a finite mind in order to point out its significant opposite of an infinite, whether that infinite exists or not. Even the astrophysicists have not been able to prove that an infinite exists, but they know their own finite minds exist, because they 'THINK'.

And in the field of mathematics, an infinite is postulated in order to do higher math, but without being able to prove that the infinite exists in the material world. Hence, all the attributes ascribed to "diety" are merely logical forms of the mental process of logic, i.e., abstract logic which have absolutely no validity in the material or empirical world in which humans live.

All those forms are merely bare abstractions, and in higher math are used as a sort of a "game" to entertain the speculations of man with an abstract realm of postulates from which man draws abstract conclusions similar to what you have done.

In that sense, your post is like the writings of the Scholastic School of the Middle Ages, that became so ludicrous that they argued even the mathematical calculations of "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin!" If you can't perceive how absurd all the stuff and nonsense of the metaphysical realm with its methodology of formal logic is, then you are no more than a Scholastic who was born too late.

[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.


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 frist 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.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

[Eddier1]

You wrote:

"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."

It is a tautology, nevertheless. It refers to the results of the Principle of Identity which only has validity in the realm of logic. And therefore tautology which is a logical form can invalidate your claim that "truth can exist by itself".

Logical forms do not exist by themselves. They are not entities in the empirical or material world. They are merely forms of thought, and as such can only function metaphysically.

As to your second NB, you are committing more than a logical fallacy by introducing infinite ramifications. You are committing a metaphysical error by multiplying entities unnecessarily, especially about an infinite that can only be an entity if and when the astrophysicists can prove that the Universe is infinite, and yet they have not been able to do that.

In math, it is only a game to use the nth degree in calculations, for example in calculating logrithims. And the biggest metaphysical error you commit of all is when you introduce the word "God" tacking it on to your logical argumentation for infinite ramifications and a cause which is a first cause necessary and sufficient unto itself.

No such first cause has ever been discovered, not even the "big bang" hypothesis claims to be a first cause. It is only a theory as to what happened. The elements in the primordial soup could well have always existed, and never were created at all. The entire Universe may be merely a fluctuation of the quanta found in the primordial soup. In short, what you see is what you get. And there is no need to multiply entities unnecessarily as Occam's razor suggests and which destroyed all the metaphysical errors of the Scholastics and all their logic chopping, which you also do exhaustively.