Thursday, March 01, 2012

A proof for the existence of God

I am just having some rest and recreation, my doctor says I must rest after they placed a stent in one of my heart arteries. What an irony, the one that is supposed to be giving me health (food) is the one that is killing me.

Here goes the proof....consider the following sentences:
1.) God exists
2.) None of the sentences in this pair is true.

Let us call sentence 1 and 2 as G and N respectively. Then we have the following conjunction of sentences as a pair, G & N.

Now G or N may be true or false, we do not know which is which.

Assume first that N is true. If so, then we have a contradiction because there is supposed to be no sentence in the pair that is true, and so the value of G is irrelevant. Whatever it is G & N is inconsistent.

Assume now that N is false. If so, then the negation of N means at least one of the pair is true. Since there are only two sentences, G and N and we know N is false, it must be G that is true.

Thus in order for statement G & N to make sense or for it to be consistent, G must be true.

Hence G is true or God exists.

This is my elaboration of Buridan's Proof of the existence of God.

16 comments:

Mild Colonial Boy, Esq. said...

Mr Cruz,

I hope you feel better soon. You will be in my prayers.

J. K. Jones said...

I din't know you were having health problems. We will pray for you.

LPC said...

MCB, Esq.

Thank you for your prayers Attorney.

I appreciate it.

God bless you as well.

LPC

LPC said...

JK,

Just appreciating the down time, cholesterol is a big issue with my grandparents from both sides.

Thank you for your prayers.

LPC

joel in ga said...

Lito,

it's rather late right now in this time zone so I won't dare attempt to get my brain around that proof of yours. However, I will be happy to pray for your good health.

Ever heard of the so-called 'primal' diet?

LPC said...

Joel,

Thank you bro, I am reading about it now.

It is actually my fault too because I know our history but rather than doing something about the high cholesterol I sort of by default accepted it as simply has to happen.

What I did was not wise. I should have done something about it earlier.

I am grateful for your prayers.

LPC

Steven Goodrich said...

Lito,
I like the proof. Also, my family will pray for you as well.

LPC said...

Steven,

Thank you for your thoughts and prayers.

Jean Buridan was an enigmatic character.

LPC

Jim Pierce said...

I am sorry to read about your illness, Lito. You are in my prayers.

As for the proof I think a couple points should be made. You write, "Assume now that N is false." If we make such an assumption and then move to express it, we have a third sentence and no longer a pair. In other words, the negation of either G or N requires further expression and therefore, the conclusion remains.

Another issue I see is that N is a contradiction (as you point out). Indeed, it is not a conclusion that follows from G, which is a premise. The argument is simply invalid and can offer us nothing as a proof.

You can't argue for the truth of G simply from the absurdity of N. What you can say is that the G and N involve an absurdity and that absurdity is with N.

Finally, the negation of N gives us the sentence, "It is not the case 'None of the sentences in this pair is true.'" The negation of N doesn't entail the truth of G. The new sentence (the negation of N) merely tells us that N is false. In order to conclude the truth of G, we need a sub argument to add into the "proof" so that once we arrive to the conclusion that N is false, we will see that G goes through.

LPC said...

Jim,

Thank you actually I have also prayed for your wife a few weeks ago when were exchanging at Steadfast. I read about her condition and I prayed for you both too. Thank you for your prayers.

Re: Your analysis, there is a hole in Buridan's proof but that is not where it lies as you point comment. Jim, all of his moves are legal moves in logic.

The statement's G and N must carry either True or False. The statement - "Assume that N is False" or whatever, is not part of the pair and secondly it is a meta-statement, again not part of the pair so, it is legal, we are only talking about G, N. N is speaking about G and N itself.

It is a truth table situation, assigning the T or F on the propositions and which one yields truth.

As you can see, take any assertion, you can form the conjunction of that assertion with another assertion and so Buridan's move are legal moves.

You can't argue for the truth of G simply from the absurdity of N. What you can say is that the G and N involve an absurdity and that absurdity is with N.

N is not that absurd. If N was saying, this statement is false, then that would be, instead N says, "None of the statements in this pair is true". But it is possible that N is false, i.e, one of them is true so N is not that absurd.

Finally, the negation of N gives us the sentence, "It is not the case 'None of the sentences in this pair is true.'" The negation of N doesn't entail the truth of G. The new sentence (the negation of N) merely tells us that N is false. In order to conclude the truth of G, we need a sub argument to add into the "proof" so that once we arrive to the conclusion that N is false, we will see that G goes through.

We are forming, G & N, and it is not possible for N to be True, hence the only possibility is for N to be False, but since there are only two sentences, and the other is False,, i.e. implying at least one of the statements is true it has to be G that is true.

The criticism of this Buridan proof is that you can replace G with "God does not exists" and it will also work.

A two edged sword. I appreciate your attempt to deal with this issue.

LPC

Gregory L. Jackson said...

We are praying for your rapid and complete recovery. Mrs. Ichabod has two of them. It took a few months to feel stronger but she has been better ever since. Take it easy.

Cardiologists are big for fish oil tablets and one aspirin a day.

We are praying for you in church tomorrow and also tonight.

LPC said...

Hi Dr. Greg,

Thank you so much for your continued prayers. As I said, I enjoy your sermons, I listen offline and it is as as meaty as Luther's old sermons, lots of food and insights.

If people listen to your sermons and not just your polemical blog writings, they will have a more well rounded understanding of you as a man.

That news from Mrs. Ichabod is encouraging!

LPC

Gregory L. Jackson said...

She is better than ever. Before the stents she was on oxygen. She stopped using it. But give yourself time to heal. Cardio patients tend toward denial and proving they can do things too early.

Jim Pierce said...

Lito,

Thank you for the prayers. They are much appreciated.

LPC said...

Dr. Greg,


Cardio patients tend toward denial and proving they can do things too early.

This is so so me. I am really like this. I behave as if I did not get any procedure or surgery.

Thank you so much for this insight Pr. Greg, I needed to hear that and be patient.

LPC

LPC said...

Jim,


I feel for your concern, we love our wives. I will continue to pray the Lord guides her healing.

May the Lord bless and have mercy.

LPC