Deities cannot exist because of their consciousness

keith keithj43 at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 29 17:24:41 EST 2003


"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hqnz8e0.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca>...
> On 28 Dec 2003 18:18:01 -0800, keith wrote:
> 
> >No it doesn't. It makes the logical status of the conclusion dependent
> >on the premise. It doesn't make the being named in the conclusion
> >dependent on anything for his existence.
> >
> >keith 
> 
> That's an axiom about god, and therefore doesn't affect my point about the
> logic of proofs of god's existence.


Do you mean that God not depending on anything else for his existence
is an axiom? I agree.

> I'll repeat my point: People who try to
> prove god's existence, by that very process of proof have accepted that god's
> existence is contingent upon other things.



> If they, like you, nevertheless
> believe that god's existence is not contingent, then they have contradicted
> their own beliefs. IOW, proving gods' existence is a mug's game if you
> believe its existence is not contingent - so why do it?


That's where I'd say you are wrong. I'd say you are confusing the
logical status of a proposition with the ontological status of a being
mentioned in that proposition. There is no contradiction in proving a
necessary truth to be true; in fact it happens all the time.

 
> You keep bringing in premises that weren't included in the original argument
> - such premises have no bearing on the validity if the original argument.
> Once again - I'm not discussing whether god exists or not, I'm discussing the
> logic of purported proofs of god's existence.


I don't see that I have brought in any premises that weren't included
in the original argument, and nothing I have said depends on it
actually being the case that God exists. I have also been talking
about the logic of arguing for God; you are mistaken that God
necessarily existing contradicting "God exists" being the conclusion
of a sound argument. If not-P implied [God doesn't exist] and the
truth of P were a contingent fact, then God's existence would be
contingent. But neither of those are the case wrt to any proofs of
God.

> If you claim that god's
> existence is not contingent, you cannot logically accept any proof its
> existence, since any such proof makes god's existence contingent.


YOu keep saying that, but I;d say you are quite wrong.
> 
> I hope I've made myself clear.

I understood your assertion from the beginning; I don't agree with you
that it's right.

Keith
> 
> As to whether or not god exists: I have no wish to debate that.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list