A simple argument for God's existence

Author: Soluminsanis
Religion
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 27
Topic's author
#1
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
P1. There is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified (i.e. no state of affairs where 2 plus 2 equals 9, or triangles have four sides)

P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition. 

P3. If they are not dependent  on human cognition,  they are dependent on another cognition.  Namely a universal cognition. 

P4. A universal cognition that apprehends the truth value of all necessary propositions (universals) can apprehend the truth value of all particular and contigent propositions. 

P5. Any mind that apprehends the truth value of all propositions is omniscient. 


P6. An omniscient mind exists. 

P7. Therefore God exists. 




Topic's author
#2
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
I threw this argument together on a whim.  Its my own little version of the argument from universals,  or divine conceptualism... any thoughts?
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
im sure it makes sense
#4
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Soluminsanis
My guess would be that the atheist is going to take issue beginning with P3, and tell you to support that claim and that cognition is not required for universal truths to exist. So while P4 and P5 and so on would be true you must first establish P3 before they are accepted. So if it were me, I'd tighten up P3 or add another component to make it more convincing.



#5
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Soluminsanis
That is a nice try if you made that up yourself.

Ontological arguments usually depend on incompatible assumptions.

I this case I suspect P1 is true because universals are independent from cognition. P3 on the other hand is true because universals depend on cognition.

Those two assumption seem hard to reconcile. As EtrnVw guessed, the second assumption seems to be the most dubious one.

At face value I don't buy premises 4 and 5 either.

There seems to be another error in the argument, but that can be corrected easily. It assumes that a universal must be true or false, while it could be neither.
#6
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Soluminsanis
P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition. 
For a concept to exist, it has to be apprehended first. 



#7
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
For a concept to exist, it has to be apprehended first. 

He's making that point in P3, I believe he's just making a distinction between "human" cognition as opposed to a "universal" cognition (AKA God). This would be the point of the OP's conclusion (P3-P7). 

However, the poster never said specifically "concepts" even though he provided examples. "Universal truths" more precisely, so that doesn't mean just concepts so the question comes into play which I brought up above is that does it require cognition for universal truths to exist. Maybe universal laws would be more appropriate here? 
#8
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
All ideas are conceptual and descriptively convenient of how we view the world in which we experience. 
They’re not universal in a cosmological nor human sense. They’re not pre-programmed in us nor reside within the ether. 
#9
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
All ideas are conceptual and descriptively convenient of how we view the world in which we experience. 

Correct.

They’re not universal in a cosmological nor human sense. They’re not pre-programmed in us nor reside within the ether. 

We're not talking about ideas here, where something needs to be recognized through cognition. The OP said universal truths, I'm assuming that means things that exist that are true regardless of perception....could be wrong though but it wasn't made clear, it's just the words he chose to use. Like the law gravity for example (a universal truth), does it need cognition to exist? if a triangle existed....does it need cognition to exist with three sides? 

Topic's author
#10
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@EtrnlVw
"My guess would be that the atheist is going to take issue beginning with P3, and tell you to support that claim and that cognition is not required for universal truths to exist. So while P4 and P5 and so on would be true you must first establish P3 before they are accepted. So if it were me, I'd tighten up P3 or add another component to make it more convincing.


Yes,  I would agree wholeheartedly. 

Topic's author
#11
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@Amoranemix
"That is a nice try if you made that up yourself.


Thank you 

"
I this case I suspect P1 is true because universals are independent from cognition. P3 on the other hand is true because universals depend on cognition.

Right but in this case there's two different cognitions in view here.  Universals are independent of one but dependent on another



#12
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
States exist because we assign value to them.
Language is far more complex than most take for granted in how we perceive the world. 


#13
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Soluminsanis
I this case I suspect P1 is true because universals are independent from cognition. P3 on the other hand is true because universals depend on cognition.
Right but in this case there's two different cognitions in view here. Universals are independent of one but dependent on another
Assuming universals are dependent on some cognition, how to you plan on proving P1?
#14
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Soluminsanis
You also would do well to define "God" in P7. If it's a specific god, then there's rather insufficient connective tissue between 6 - 7. "Omniscient mind" does not inherently advance the ball on identification of a specific character. 
Topic's author
#15
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@Amoranemix
"Assuming universals are dependent on some cognition, how to you plan on proving P1?"

Great question.  I would argue p1. is true strictly because universals are dependent on a universal cognition.  Does that make sense?

#16
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Soluminsanis
Your argument appears to be the following :

P. Universals are dependent on a universal cognition.
C. Therefore, there is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified.

I don't understand how the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premise. Without P, I tend to grant C, but P could undermine it.

Also, your argument has other problems that you have yet to correct.

#17
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
P1. There is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified (i.e. no state of affairs where 2 plus 2 equals 9, or triangles have four sides)
A wordy way of saying that tautologies are necessary true. Which itself is a tautology.

P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition. 
Ok, sure.

P3. If they are not dependent  on human cognition,  they are dependent on another cognition.  Namely a universal cognition. 
False. They are not dependent on any form of cognition.

P4. A universal cognition that apprehends the truth value of all necessary propositions (universals) can apprehend the truth value of all particular and contigent propositions. 
Not necessarily true.

P5. Any mind that apprehends the truth value of all propositions is omniscient. 
Sure.

P6. An omniscient mind exists. 
Since some of your premises fail, this does not follow. But even if we grant your premises, this does not follow. From P3 we can only deduce that, for any universal truth, it is dependent on some non-human cognition. You have not shown that all universal (or their contingent consequences) must be dependent on the same, singular cognition. Maybe they, collectively, are dependent on 2 non-human cognitions. Or 5, Or 326,875,923,465 cognitions. Collectively, they are omniscient, but individually they are not.

P7. Therefore God exists. 
God has additional properties other than omniscience, so positing the existence of an omniscient being does not necessarily lead to God existing.
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Soluminsanis
A simple argument for God's existence.....

 ...... would be for you to offer proof of his existence or for himself to offer some proof that he actually exist, like  burning the problematic  bush I have in my garden. 

Yes I know, " Do not put the LORD your God to the test " Deuteronomy 6:16  & "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".Matthew 4:7, but surely god knows we have moved on since the flood?  Surely he must understand that we are no longer the superstitious, gullible, illiterate subservient beings of ancient times.?
#19
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7





SOLUMINSANIS,

Since your perceived godly intelligence never stated in which "God Concept" you were talking about, I can only assume that you were referring to the Muslim God named Allah. Therefore, your continued treatises upon this topic is forever ongoing with no direct outcome, therefore proving that you don't know Jack Shyte about ANY GOD existing or not.  Priceless comedy and embarrassment at your continued expense again, and again, and again, and again, and again! LOL! 

Jesus and I have never seen so many religious fools, like you, as this forum represents on a continued basis. 


NEXT?



.

#20
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Soluminsanis
P3. If they are not dependent  on human cognition,  they are dependent on another cognition.  Namely a universal cognition. 
To say that they are dependent on a universal cognition is to say that this cognition isn’t bound by the laws of logic. If it is not bound by logic then your belief about it cannot be based in logic, rendering your attempt at a logical argument for it to be self defeating at the outset.
Topic's author
#21
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@Double_R
"To say that they are dependent on a universal cognition is to say that this cognition isn’t bound by the laws of logic."

How? The laws of logic are universals and therefore,  if the argument goes through,  they are grounded in the universal cognition. 

#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Soluminsanis
 Do you believe That this universal ignition is capable of existing and not existing at the same time? Do you believe it make make itself what it is and what it is not at the same time in the same sense?

If yes, then your belief is definitionally irrational, undercutting any attempt to prove its existence with logic.

If no, then this cognition is bound by these universals, which would require some other force to impose these universal limits on this cognition. If that is the case then this cognition cannot be claimed to account for them or be the source of them.
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Soluminsanis
The universe is.

And currently the laws of logic are bound by human cognition.

To suggest universal cognition, is just that...And not necessarily necessary.
#24
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,568
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Christian: rejects 4 199 religions
Atheist: rejects 4 200 religions



#25
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
This is essentially begging the question, what "cognition"? The only cognition is that of humans, otherwise, something simply is because of natural laws, you are assuming there to be cognition. 
#26
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
This is essentially begging the question
You know a lot about that considering that’s what you did in your syllogism, the word “good” was in question and you used your version of the word without providing adequate explanation as to why your version overrules mine.
#27
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Soluminsanis
If they are not dependent  on human cognition,  they are dependent on another cognition
Can you make some demonstration of this statement?