Expert: Austin Cline - 2/9/2004

Question
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Hello,

I think I've found a reason that proves the existance of God but noone seems willing to comment.  Could you please tell me if you can see anything wrong with this:

I found a reason that proves the existance of
G-d, the existance of choice.  For choice to truly be choice choice must have chosen to be.  
The only way for that to happen would be for one with the ability to do anything to allow
choice to choose its own existance.  God.  If any more than one were involved choice would
not be yes/no because choice would have been allowed by more than one thereby allowing more
than one choice ((yes/no) and maybe are a choice between certain and uncertain).

Kind Regards,
James
Answer -
"For choice to truly be choice choice must have chosen to be."

I'm not sure how this makes any sense. Why must "choice choose to be" in order for "choice" to exist? I see no reason to assume this to true.

Moreover, for "choice" to "choose," it must have will and intention... and it must exist. Ergo, choice already existed. It's a Stolen Concept Fallacy to assume the existence of something that is only supposed to come into the equation later on.

"The only way for that to happen would be for one with the ability to do anything to allow choice to choose its own existance. God."

Did this god "choose" to allow choice to "choose"? If so, then choice already existed. If not, then this god is an automaton - and not the traditional god of classical, philosophical theism.

" If any more than one were involved choice would not be yes/no..."

So? Why would it have to be "yes/no"?

Two general problems with this "proof":

First, you need to define what you mean by "choice."
Second, you need to define what you mean by "God."

Only with those definitions can you show that the existence of what you mean by "choice" can logically point to what you mean by "God." Without those definitions, you could theoretically mean anything and it's not possible to reliably evaluate the argument.

--------------------------------

Thanks for your reply,

""For choice to truly be choice choice must have chosen to be."

I'm not sure how this makes any sense. Why must "choice choose to be" in order for "choice" to exist? "

If choice doesn't begin with a choice (ie choosing to be choice) then choice must be something else because it cannot be choice.  It is partly choice and partly something else and so an amalgum of the two but not either.

"for "choice" to "choose," it must have will and intention"

That choice cannot have had a will and intention prior to it existing and thus cannot have chosen to exist is my point.  Logically something must have allowed it to choose.  This is illogical and impossible and so only something with an ability to do anything can have done that.

By my definition God must have an ability to do anything.

The basis behind this is you can't apply logic to God if God created logic.  From a mathematical perspective if you have 1 God and that God creates something then you have 2 and so choice and logic which arrive at 1 but you can't apply logic to that 1 alone.  Yes and no are how we arrive at 1, dismissing 1 and accepting 1 making each 1 true or false.  False is false even to itself therefore only true can exist and only 1.

This is just how I'm thinking.

Kind Regards,
James
Answer -
"If choice doesn't begin with a choice..."

That's not what you said. This sounds like "One must first choose to choose," but you originally said "Choice must have chosen to be," which is analogous to "Bill must have chosen to be" or "Ted must have chosen to be." In your first formulation, you were treating "choice" like a person.

This new formulate makes more sense - for choice to exist, at some point someone must have chosen to choose. That's an existentialist position. However, if we grant that "someone once chose to choose," that does not logically lead us to conclude "therefore, God made that choice."

"By my definition God must have an ability to do anything. The basis behind this is you can't apply logic to God if God created logic."

God can contradict logic? Then God can both exist and not exist at the same time. Then God can promise heaven and deliver hell without lying. God can promise anything and deliver nothing without lying. Then any logical argument for the existence of God will fail because God is not contrained what logical arguments can and cannot prove. Any god not bound by logic cannot be trusted.

You still haven't defined "choice" - for example, you need a definition that would require choice appear all at once (like by divine fiat) rather than gradually (like through evolution as the power of self-awareness, perhaps necessary for choice, develops). You would also need to demonstrate that "choice" exists, which would require proving that free will exists - not an easy task. Of course, since your proof requires that God choose, you'll also have to prove that God has free will - an even more difficult task if god is defined as omniscient (it's unlikely that a being which knows perfectly and without error everything it will do in the future actually can be said to "choose" it's actions when the time comes).

That's an awful lot to accomplish before you can even try to demonstrate that the existence of choice requires that there have been a god that once chose (which doesn't mean that this god still exists, unless this concept of god *requires* that it still exist - but I don't see how that can be shown as necessary).

----------------------------------------

I was talking about choice as an entirely individual concept, analysed away from anything else.  It must exist because it can be understood by a human mind in this universe and thus exists in this universe.  Following that reasoning free will also exists.  Yes and following that reasoning so does everything ever conceived by any sentience.

That you choose not to trust a god who can lie and another may choose to go the other way is demonstrative of free will.  God is not constrained within self but is constrained outside self within logic.

The process of choice is having two then one which excludes the other one.  Two is itself  one two and therefore if chosen is one which excludes zero (itself one zero).
Answer -
"I was talking about choice as an entirely individual concept, analysed away from anything else. It must exist because it can be understood by a human mind in this universe and thus exists in this universe."

That does not logically folllow. Beauty, love, and desire are concepts that can be understood by human minds, but that doesn't mean that they exist in the universe apart from the minds of human beings (and other sentient beings). The premise "can be understod by humans" does not logically entail the inference "exist aparat from human beings and everything else." Indeed, I would argue that you are making a critical category error by presuming to remove "choice" from any context in the first place.

So you don't have an argument for free will here. Of course, even if "choice" existed independently of the human mind, that wouldn't mean that *humans* have free will. At most it would mean that a prerequisite for free will existed out there for someone - just not necessarily us.

"That you choose not to trust a god who can lie and another may choose to go the other way is demonstrative of free will."

You misunderstand. My saying that the god in question cannot be trusted isn't a question of choice, but of necessity. I specifically stated that this god *wasn't* lying by promising heaven and delivering hell. This is a necessary consequence of being unconstrained by logic.

"The process of choice is having two then one which excludes the other one."

If one of my options excludes the other, then I'm not choosing but, rather, am being forced down a certain path by the circumstances before me.

So far, you haven't even provided coherent definitions of "God" or "choice," much less any reasons to think that choice might imply the existence of God. Or even that there is a relationship between the two.

Have you ever read any introductory texts on logic and arguments? It might help.

-----------------------------------------------
Fictional representation in the form of media such as cartoons, movies, etc is evidence of the existance of that which is in our minds in the actual universe.  People try to portray love, beauty and desire in the choreography/words of the characters or using colours and shapes in a real and physical way independant of the mind of the creator.

You are right about an inability for anything to exist separately from anything else which was the direction my reasoning seems to have been heading.  By separating choice from anything it arrived at God from which comes everything.

Following the reasoning from previous if God allowed choice to exist then it becomes choice independant of God that chooses what it promises and delivers.  Any choice made within choice can also choose.  God needn't even interact with choice.

When you said God wasn't lying by promising heaven and delivering hell you also included the statement "Any god not bound by logic cannot be trusted." which is a choice.

""The process of choice is having two then one which excludes the other one."

If one of my options excludes the other, then I'm not choosing but, rather, am being forced down a certain path by the circumstances before me."

By choosing you are excluding one option by choice but you can choose to exclude the other option.  By choosing you are choosing to force one option away so though you are being forced down a path it is a path of your own choosing.
Answer -
"Fictional representation in the form of media such as cartoons, movies, etc is evidence of the existance of that which is in our minds in the actual universe."

Anything in our minds is also in the universe - the point is, these things are not "in the universe" *independent* of our minds (ignoring other sentient beings, just for the sake of argument).

"... if God allowed choice to exist then it becomes choice independant of God..."

You might mean "If God allows other beings to choose then it becomes choice independent of God...," otherwise the above makes no sense. However:

1. You are supposed to be using choice to prove the existence of God, so a premise of God allowing choice to exist isn't valid. The term "God" has to come up later - otherwise you are committing a fallacy.
2. If God is omniportent and omniscient, then God is ultimately responsible for all choices made by others (because God is capable of changing things, but doesn't, so must find events acceptable). That is why it is critical to define "God" and why your continued failure to do so undermines everything you have attempted to argue so far.

"When you said God wasn't lying by promising heaven and delivering hell you also included the statement "Any god not bound by logic cannot be trusted." which is a choice. "

You are assuming that "trust" is always a choice, but that isn't obviously true. I think that, at least in some cases, "trust" is no more a choice than are beliefs.

"By choosing you are excluding one option by choice but you can choose to exclude the other option."

You are assuming that  a choice exists, but your earlier words you said "The process of choice is having two then one which excludes the other one." One WHAT excludes the other? One OPTION, of course. Ergo, one OPTION excludes the other OPTION. If one option excludes another option, then I AM NOT CHOOSING.

So long as you refuse to define choice or God, is there really any point in continuing this? You aren't asking me any questions, you're just trying to salvage an argument which is unsalvagable in the absence of certain minimum requirements - things you would realize if you took my advice and did some research on basic logic and arguments.
--------------------------------

I have already done both if you looked beyond your preconceived notions of logic and arguments.  You only seem to be seing one side and not really understanding where I'm coming from or what I'm saying but thankyou for the conversation.  It has been enjoyable.

Kind Regards,
James
Answer -
"I have already done both if you looked beyond your preconceived notions of logic and arguments."

I'm sorry, but you haven't. You offered a couple of characteristics of a "god" and of "choice," but not definitions. I'm not working simply from "preconceived notions of logic and arguments," but what *logic is*. I don't think you understand what logic is.

No, I don't see what you are saying or understand where you are coming from because *you aren't using logic properly.* You can't make up logic as you go along and pretend that you are creating a logical argument. It doesn't work that way. Until you acquire a better grasp of logic, your arguments will be failures.
----------------------------------------------

I'll go down to the basics.

Mathematics is wrong because 0 x 0 cannot = 0
You cannot have zero zeros and still have zero.  You cannot have nothing of nothing and still have nothing.  Nothing is nothing of nothing so nothing cannot be (or not be).

Man's understanding of what logic is is wrong.  0 cannot be.  Only 1 can be.  Death cannot exist.  Lies cannot exist.  Only life can exist.  Only truth can exist.  What we perceive as our world cannot be because it just doesn't add up.
Answer -
"Mathematics is wrong because 0 x 0 cannot = 0"

Then what does it equal (along with the mathematical proof, of course).

"Man's understanding of what logic is is wrong."

In what, exactly?

"0 cannot be. Only 1 can be. Death cannot exist. Lies cannot exist. Only life can exist. Only truth can exist. What we perceive as our world cannot be because it just doesn't add up."

All of that are questions addressed in metaphysics, not logic. Logic is the field which describes how we arrive at valid or invalid answers for such questions, that is true, but the questions themselves are part of metaphysics.

See what I mean? You can't even distinguish between metaphysics and logic! I'd like to ask you to offer proofs for your claims, but I honestly don't think that you can do it. I'm not even sure that you know what a logical proof is.

------------------------------------------------

Can you prove that 0 x 0 = 0?
Answer -
"Can you prove that 0 x 0 = 0"

The claim that it doesn't equal that is yours to prove, something you would understand if you understood basic logic. But you never learned anything about logic, did you?

I'm glad that I didn't actually expect your to support your other claims. Why do you even bother to claim things if you have no intention of supporting them?
-------------------------------------------

Alright that's OK.  I can see we're not going to get anywhere because you are still clinging to preconceived ideas given to you by someone else that you use to try to understand something that can't ever be fully understood using those ideas.  If you stopped clinging to what you have been taught and try thinking for yourself you may see what I mean.

I was looking for a reason that I was either right or wrong but you haven't given me either.

As far a logic goes, I did discrete and concrete mathematics during first year uni but they weren't complete enough for me.  So I took my mind beyond.

Thanks again for the coversation.

Answer
"I can see we're not going to get anywhere because you are still clinging to preconceived ideas given to you by someone else that you use to try to understand something that can't ever be fully understood using those ideas. "

Correction: *you* will not get anywhere because *you* will not support any of *your* claims. It is not my obligation to prove your claims wrongs; it is your obligation to prove your claims are right. Refusing to do so is not intellectually honest. Once again: Why do you bother to make claims if you do not intend to support them?

"I did discrete and concrete mathematics during first year uni but they weren't complete enough for me. So I took my mind beyond."

I honestly doubt all of that. I've not seen any evidence that you are familiar with rudimentary logic or mathematics.

In all seriousness: are you on medication that you have not been taking properly?