Does Logic Prove God's Existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PFanalog57
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on two contrasting views regarding the nature of existence: one posits that everything occurs randomly and without purpose, while the other asserts that everything has a reason and purpose. The first viewpoint suggests that if the universe operates within an infinite probability space, it allows for the existence of anything, including a powerful creative God. This leads to the conclusion that the second viewpoint is the only logical choice, implying that creation is finite and necessitates an ultimate purpose, thereby affirming the existence of God.However, some participants argue that this presents a false dichotomy, asserting that the second option does not necessarily negate the first. They contend that the argument's structure is flawed, as it introduces the term "God" without it being present in the initial premises, rendering the conclusion invalid. This critique highlights the need for logical coherence in philosophical arguments, particularly in the context of ontological discussions.
PFanalog57
Messages
384
Reaction score
0
There exist two choices:

[1.] Everything happens accidentally and randomly, without a purpose.

[2.] Everything happens for a reason and with a purpose.



[1.] Can be shown to be true IF we live in an infinite probability space with an infinite number of possibilities.

If [1.] is true THEN it becomes possible for the existence of ANYTHING.

So, then there becomes a strong possibility that an ultimate creative God exists that would be more powerful than the other possibilities.

So [1.] becomes invalidated due to the possibility for anything to exist, allowing for a non random creation to exist because an ultimate creative God can exist.

[2.] is the only logical choice and creation is then finite.

Since everything happens for a reason, there must be a reason for the existence of everything in a finite creation.

A "reason" of reasons. An ultimate purpose.

Therefore God must exist.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If only [1.], nothing will ever remain consistent and coherent. The possibility maybe there, but what's to hold that possibility together?
 
Russell E. Rierson said:
There exist two choices:

[1.] Everything happens accidentally and randomly, without a purpose.

[2.] Everything happens for a reason and with a purpose.

This is a false dichotomy. [2.] is not the negation of [1.]

It should read: There exist two choices:

[1.] Everything happens accidentally and randomly, without a purpose.

[2.] At least one thing happens for a reason and with a purpose.

Since your reductio argument is based on this fallacy, I'll skip it.

Therefore God must exist.

*yawn*

Textbook example of a non-sequitir.

Really Russell, I thought you at least had enough familiarity with basic logic to know that an argument cannot possibly be valid if its conclusion contains a term ("God" in this case) that is nowhere to be found in the premises.

Sorry, but this is exactly the type of poorly formulated argument that our Philosophy Forums Guidelines were enacted to prevent. We will host ontological arguments here, but they at least have to be valid.
 
Every day we learn new things. Sometimes it's just a small fact or realization. No matter how trivial or random, let's start recording our daily lessons. Please start off with "Today I learned". Keep commentary to a minimum and just LIKE posts. I'll start! Today I learned that you clean up a white hat by spraying some cleaner with bleach on it (rinse before putting it back on your head!)

Similar threads

Back
Top