6 ms·

Suppose God doesn't exist. Then ... middle, middle, middle,...Contradiction. Thus by "excluded middle", God does exist. I have never seen theology do that. The

Suppose God doesn't exist. Then ... middle, middle, middle,...Contradiction. Thus by "excluded middle", God does exist. I have never seen theology do that. Theology proceeds by saying God exists with no proof, constructive or otherwise. Then it derives whatever it wants from that. Logic applies only when it's convenient and if you start from false premises, you can prove anything correct. Nonconstructive proofs usually tell you something exists, but don't give you an example of it. Theology asserts something exists(with no proof), gives you examples(which don't support the assertions). Quite a difference here.

fpoling 10y ago
Consider medieval consideration about number of angels that can fit on a pin. Those were often pretty sofisticated deductions that are not much different in spirit from modern deductions from Continuum hypothesis.
jessriedel 10y ago
You're not addressing these sorts of arguments, which is what fpoling is referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Deductive_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Deductive_arg...
- accountt 10y ago
  Can you, please, give me an example of a nonconstructive mathematical concept that's close to what you linked?
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    You said > Suppose God doesn't exist. Then ... middle, middle, middle,...Contradiction. Thus by "excluded middle", God does exist. I have never seen theology do that. Here is a summary of Anselm's argument for the existence of God: > 1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). > 2. God exists as an idea in the mind. > 3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. > 4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). > 5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) > 6. Therefore, God exists. (Emphasis mine.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm But really, you don't even need something with such a close 1-to-1 mapping for fpoling's comment to be reasonable. Consider the Banach–Tarski paradox. In both cases, you're talking about "something that cannot be experimentally observable or constructable" -- a perfect being, or a certain disjoint decomposition of the 3-ball -- "and then apply logic".

fpoling 10y ago

Consider medieval consideration about number of angels that can fit on a pin. Those were often pretty sofisticated deductions that are not much different in spirit from modern deductions from Continuum hypothesis.

jessriedel 10y ago

You're not addressing these sorts of arguments, which is what fpoling is referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Deductive_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Deductive_arg...

accountt 10y ago
Can you, please, give me an example of a nonconstructive mathematical concept that's close to what you linked?
- jessriedel 10y ago
  You said > Suppose God doesn't exist. Then ... middle, middle, middle,...Contradiction. Thus by "excluded middle", God does exist. I have never seen theology do that. Here is a summary of Anselm's argument for the existence of God: > 1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). > 2. God exists as an idea in the mind. > 3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. > 4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). > 5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) > 6. Therefore, God exists. (Emphasis mine.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm But really, you don't even need something with such a close 1-to-1 mapping for fpoling's comment to be reasonable. Consider the Banach–Tarski paradox. In both cases, you're talking about "something that cannot be experimentally observable or constructable" -- a perfect being, or a certain disjoint decomposition of the 3-ball -- "and then apply logic".