Analysis of Hartshorne's (1962) Proof of the Existence of God

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on Hartshorne's (1962) proof of the existence of God, exploring its validity and soundness within the framework of modal logic. Participants engage in a debate about the implications of the proof, the nature of existence, and the relevance of belief versus truth, while also drawing parallels to other mythical entities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Owen presents Hartshorne's argument and claims it is valid but not sound, asserting that it does not prove the existence of God.
  • Some participants question the relevance of discussing the existence of God, comparing it to mythical beings like fairies and unicorns.
  • There is a challenge to the assertion that belief does not entail truth, with some participants arguing that definitions matter in these discussions.
  • One participant states that the burden of proof lies with those making claims about existence.
  • Another participant argues that the proof presented by Owen lacks substance and fails to define reality.
  • Disagreement arises over whether the discussion is pointless or if it has merit in exploring philosophical questions about existence.
  • Some participants express frustration with the repetitive nature of the topic and question the motivations behind discussing it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus. There are multiple competing views regarding the validity of Hartshorne's proof, the nature of existence, and the relevance of the discussion itself. Some find the topic pointless, while others see value in exploring the philosophical implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying assumptions about the nature of existence and the criteria for proving existence, which remain unresolved. The discussion also highlights differing perspectives on the burden of proof and the validity of arguments presented.

  • #91
reasonmclucus said:
It could be. Certainly the idea of some being more powerful than humans can be a frightening concept
on the other hand, to some humans it seems that the "non-existence" of a being more powerful than humans is a frightening concept.

MF
:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
reasonmclucus said:
...Empirical science theories can be proved. ...
"can be confirmed." (and never clearly disconfirmed/ violated.) would be better than "proven." As I agree with all else you said, I bet you agree with this suggest. (Poppers "falsification concept".)
 
  • #93
Billy T said:
"can be confirmed." (and never clearly disconfirmed/ violated.) would be better than "proven." As I agree with all else you said, I bet you agree with this suggest. (Poppers "falsification concept".)
"Confirmed" would be a better word.
 
  • #94
Well, hoping not hi-jacking the thread...

I have a couple of proofs about the existense of the Universe-Creater aka God. However, before i start goin 'long way' on them, i want to see if people here agree whether infinity does exist or not. [according to mathematicin, it does not exist in reality. However, i will respect other opinions, and i might go with other alternative proofs if the ones i had that depend on infinity won't be acceptable]

Thats my penny before giving my two pennys :smile:
 
  • #95
Moses said:
Well, hoping not hi-jacking the thread...

I have a couple of proofs about the existense of the Universe-Creater aka God. However, before i start goin 'long way' on them, i want to see if people here agree whether infinity does exist or not. [according to mathematicin, it does not exist in reality. However, i will respect other opinions, and i might go with other alternative proofs if the ones i had that depend on infinity won't be acceptable]

Thats my penny before giving my two pennys :smile:
Infinity is a mathematical construct which does not exist in space/time reality.

To prove there is a god, you have to state the hypothesis in a negative form: There is a god because no evidence exists to the contrary. (Like, all crows are black because there is no evidence to the contrary. So if you find one non-black crow, the theory is defenseless.) Since everything is explainable without god, then your theory can't be proven.

Or, you could state the opposite theory: God does not exist because there is no evidence. If there is emperical evidence (intersubjectively verifyable), then there must be a god. The trick is to find evidence that everyone will accept as true, not just hearsay or an opinion.

Good luck :zzz:
 
Last edited:
  • #96
First off let me say before I get flamed I am no scholar so now that's out of the way I can speak as freely without sounding like an idiot because of my upfront admittance (I have said it first).

please don't mind my rambling on I do that a lot.<--I used to do drugs a lot and I swear I seen god himself appear to me on a lampshade and the holy spirit was above him and his son jesus was on the wall next to him. (right about now I am expecting that pretty much everyone is thinking that this guy is just nuts and you maybe right, but I will never forget that night.)

I am not saying that there is a god but I am also not saying that there isn't.
weird things have happened to me and they were not always of drugs some were before I even started drugs. I never started getting high and drinking until I was 18. I've had a nun pick me out of a crowd of people and only me that I needed to come to church that night.
EDITED:too crazy to say

I got myself so freaked out at times that I am no longer smoking drugs, but the damage may have already been done.

I should have named myself confused rather than pretender.

How do we know that the bible was nothing more than a play?
just asking

what came first the term good and evil or god and devil? <--Doesn't god and good look an awful lot alike? and evil and devil? was the god and devil term made from good and evil? I know I can get answers here it seems that everyone here speaks as though they have the mind of a genius.


(I thought of this when I used to do drugs)<-glad I quit
a lot of things have popped up in my head over the years such as santa claus. lol
a little thing they say about santa which was what I was told as a child was there was a guy named saint nick who actually went house to house and gave a gift anonymously,is that true I think so. The christmas that we see was created by the commercial industry so that more money can be made for the rich.
SANTA take the middle letter and move it to the end you have SATAN
Santa has little helpers and I believe they say Satan does
Santa wears a red suit and they say Satan is red
we promise that if our kids are good they will get gifts from santa.
In the bible it says thou shalt not have any other gods before me and yet we are pretty much making our kids pretty much worship him as if he were a god.

Confused about everything.
so if you ask me is there a god? I say yes and he is in everyone. he = it + god = good
and the kingdom of heaven is your body. also don't forget that there is an evil in everyone too, your mind is the universe to your heaven.
 
Last edited:
  • #97
God exists in people’s imagination and reality is a relative term. heheheh
 
  • #98
LindaGarrette said:
To prove there is a god, you have to state the hypothesis in a negative form: There is a god because no evidence exists to the contrary. (Like, all crows are black because there is no evidence to the contrary. So if you find one non-black crow, the theory is defenseless.) Since everything is explainable without god, then your theory can't be proven.

Or, you could state the opposite theory: God does not exist because there is no evidence. If there is emperical evidence (intersubjectively verifyable), then there must be a god. The trick is to find evidence that everyone will accept as true, not just hearsay or an opinion.

In court, the prosecution sometimes explains evidence by saying it is "consistent with" the accused having committed the crime. That doesn't mean that the evidence couldn't also be consistent with some other hypothesis.

If the universe had always existed that would be consistent with there being no god. Having the universe begin with a supernatural event such as the explosion of a Black Hole would be consistent with the existence of the God of Abraham particularly considering that this explanation was first made in a work attributed to the biblical patriarch Enoch(Secrets of Enoch chapter 25). Enoch describes an invisible object with a fiery light in its "belly" which would be a description of a black hole.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/2enoch01-68.htm

The existence of complex biological life on Earth is portrayed as being consistent with the presence of some Intelligence. However, this Intelligence could be an ET type being rather than a god.

The theory of evolution is sometimes suggested as being consistent with no god, but would actually more consistent with the idea that God created life. The use of slow gradual changes to produce something more complex is the way humans use to produce more complex technology, literary works or computer programs and thus is a method a long lived Intelligence might have used to produce biological life on earth. the probability of this occurring without intervention of an Intelligence would be too low to be possible.

Note: the above explanation of biological life may not be the only possible one. Others might exist which could plausably occur without the intervention of an Intelligence.
 
  • #99
hmm

i think that we cannot prove the existence of god for this reason. Science can give us a logical explanation for our questions. religion was started to explain what science could not therefore when science can explain it then religion needs to bck off
 
  • #100
How do we know that science is right?
 
  • #101
God is an invention of man to explain the things he doesn't understand. He invented the sun god to explain the sun coming up before he learned that it comes up because we go round it. He invented the fire god to explain fire before he understood that it was just the result of heat, fuel and oxygen. Somewhere along the way someone asked how we got here and why and another God was invented to explain it. Where does it end? Now we've got the ID crowd running around saying life is so complicated it must have been designed. It doesn't even rate as junk science.

OT - Hi LG, small world.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K