"Proof" that God exists

In #Logic #Probability #Religion #wordpress_migration

Introduction

If you want some entertainment in the form of logical gymnastics, go to this page on the proof of god. If you're impatient, here is one of the arguments:

Do you believe that Absolute Truth exists? Possible answers…

  1. yes -> you go on to the next piece

  2. no -> is it absolutely true that absolute truth doesn't exist?

    1. yes -> then you actually believe that absolute truth exists!
    2. no -> you get asked again if you believe that Absolute Truth exists (with the statement "This is not a glitch (Think about it)". - essentially implying either that you're making an absolute truth statement, or you can't state anything.

  3. You don't know -> Is this absolutely true?

    1. yes
    2. no -> you get asked again if you believe that Absolute Truth exists (with the statement "This is not a glitch (Think about it)". - essentially implying either that you're making an absolute truth statement, or you can't state anything.

  4. You don't care -> send you out of the site.

A similar point is made about the laws of logic:

> "If you believe that laws of logic do not exist, how do you make decisions about the most basic things in life? How do you decide which side of the road to drive on? How do you choose whether to drink water or poison for nourishment? > > One interesting aspect of denying laws of logic, like the law of non-contradiction, is that since you DO NOT believe in laws of logic, you actually DO believe in laws of logic. If contradictions are allowed in your worldview then so is that one."

Why this is stupid

I think the first basic flaw in this line of argument is that it assumes that all statements are yes/no statements. There is no accounting for probability, uncertainty, etc… Does "Absolute Truth" exist? I don't know? Is it absolutely true that I don't know? I don't know!

The second basic flaw is that it may not be a well-defined question. What does "absolute" really mean? What about "truth"? We have working definitions, which might be a bit sloppy, but perhaps if we understood them better we'd find that they are not well defined concepts. An analogy in physics might be the word "particle". We have a working definition, and in most cases it is very usable, but we know that fundamentally we just have energy and interactions - the particle is a convenient construct.

Finally, I don't think I have any patience for arguments which don't even make an attempt to be grounded in some empiricism.