Talk:Logic-based proofs of God

False premises

Uniqueness of logic proof

1. Logic is unique, such that contrary systems of logic are impossible. False.
2. The existence of God is logical.
3. Therefore God exists.

REPLY: the link is to different types of logic, not to contrary systems of logic that are impossible. No system of logic asserts that 2+2=5, for example.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2015 (EST)

I suppose this comes down to how you wish to define "contrary". I'd argue that non-classical systems which reject the law of the excluded middle, etc. are sufficiently "contrary" to classical systems as to negate your assertion of a single, "unique" form of logic. JohnZ (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2015 (EST)

A logic system denying the existence of God would be contrary to a logic system accepting the existence, just as a logic system that says "2+2=5" would be contrary to the logic system that says "2+2=4".--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2015 (EST)

Not sure where you're going with this. There are three basic positions on God's existence:

1. God exists. (Christian, of all different types)
2. God's existence is unknowable. (Agnostic)
3. God does not exist. (Atheist)

Those three statements do no violence to any version of statement logic I've ever encountered, and it's widely accepted that reasonable men can legitimately debate their merits and truth values. "2+2=5", on the other hand, is impossible to assert without ridicule. JohnZ (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2015 (EST)

REPLY: You have stated three different postulates for three different potential logical systems: God exists, can't know if God exists, and deny that God exists. But postulates are a starting point, not a conclusion. They are like positing two postulates as to the square root of 2: it is rational, and it is irrational. The task is then to see where those postulates lead in trying to construct a logical system around them. A logical system can only be constructed based on one of them.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2015 (EST)

Uncertainty proof

1. Uncertainty pervades the physical world. True
2. Logic is free of uncertainty. False.
3. Logic, therefore, does not come from the physical world.
4. Logic must come from something perpetual that is free of uncertainty.
5. This we call "God".

REPLY: the link does not mention "uncertainty", not even once. There is nothing uncertain about logic, such as the Pythagorean Theorem.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2015 (EST)

The Liar's Paradox has taxed logicians for centuries. It is most certainly an area of uncertainty in formal logic and the philosophy of language, and remains the subject of serious, ongoing debate. Unless you have solved it yourself, then the second premise is false. JohnZ (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2015 (EST)

Sorry. I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief in God. JohnZ (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2015 (EST)

Belief has nothing to do with this. The Bible can be viewed as a book of logic. Where is a logical comparable book of atheism? Can't be written, as a contrary systems of logic are impossible.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (EST)

My apologies. I was trying to be conciliatory. Regardless, hypothetical books about atheism have no bearing on our debate about the soundness of your arguments above. JohnZ (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2015 (EST)

No need for any apologies. The Bible is a book of logic that includes the existence of God. Can anyone find any logical flaws in it? None that I'm aware of, but I have an open mind about it. Can an alternative, completely logical "book of atheism" be written? None has been written yet, and it is impossible to have two contrary, coherent systems of logic.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (EST)

You keep referring to the Bible and its logic. It seems to me that your actual argument is:

1. If the Bible is perfectly logical, then God exists.
2. The Bible is perfectly logical.
3. Therefore, God exists.

I wouldn't recommend it as an argument, however, as "perfectly logical" could easily refer to nothing more significant than "internally coherent", placing the Bible in no higher company than a well-plotted detective novel.

I'd go for a more explicitly religious argument, along the lines of:

1. If the Word of the Bible is true, then God exists.
2. The Word of the Bible is true.
3. Therefore, God exists.

I realise this leaves you with no new, knockdown proof of the existence of God, but at least it's a valid argument, and one that has satisfied countless generations of Christians. JohnZ (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2015 (EST)