IUBio

Deities cannot exist because of their consciousness

keith keithj43 at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 28 21:18:01 EST 2003


"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hqmjb21.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca>...
> On 28 Dec 2003 12:18:51 -0800, keith wrote:
> 
> >> But no matter what, if "god exists" is the conclusion of some premise P, then
> >> the truth of "god exists" is contingent on the truth of P.
> >
> >That's not true AFAICS. If P were false that would not make "God
> >exists" false.
> 
> It wouldn't make ut true, either. The proposition would be logically
> indeterminate. I'll rephrase the above statement as follows:
> 
> Given a valid argument whose conclusion is "god exists", then "god's exists"
> is true if and only if the premise of the argument is true. Otherwise, "god
> exists" is logically indeterminate.


I'd agree with that.
> 
> > And it still doesn't make God *existence* dependent on
> >P. It could be the case that the statement "OJ Simpson is guilty of
> >murderer" is seen to be true because of the incredible evidence
> >against him, but that doesn't mean his *guilt* depends on that
> >evidence. At most it would be our knowledge of his guilt that is
> >dependent on the evidence.
> 
> Knowledge isn't the issue - arguments purporting to prove "god exists" is
> true are the issue. Logically, such arguments make the truth of the
> conclusion contingent on the truth of the premise.

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 


> It's irrelevant what one
> may or may not know about god's existence. For that matter, the arguer's
> beliefs about the truth of "god exists" are also irrelevant. For that matter,
> god's existence isn't the issue, either -- it's purported proofs of god's
> existence that are the issue.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net