1) Every truth leads to another one. Otherwise, truth's limit would be a non-truth, in which truth is going to find its beginning and its end. In that case, false propositions would proceed to true ones, and true ones would generate false ones as well.
2) Thus, every truth, whatever it may be, guides us by means of an infinite enchainment to supreme and unattainable Truth, which is God.
3) By stating a single true proposition, being really true, we are denying the limit that will denaturalize it (vid. 1); we are declaring an infinite progression of truths and, consequently, recognizing God's existence (vid. 2).
4) So, even if that hypothetical true proposition was "God doesn't exist", as far as it is asserted as a truth, it follows that God (i.e. the Truth, vid. 2) exists.
5) However, if God exists, the previous proposition (vid. 4) is false; and, if God doesn't exist, it is false too, because in that case the Truth (i.e. God, vid. 2) wouldn't exist and, then, single truths wouldn't exist either (vid. 3). So, in any case, God exists.
Greetings.
Daniel.
Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):
http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk
From God's inexistence it follows God's existence
-
Jac3510
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 5472
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Fort Smith, AR
- Contact:
That's an interesting line of thought, irichc, but I think you need to demonstrate it a bit more. The last part of (2), "which is God," seems to me an unsupported assertion. Why couldn't it just be that the "ultimate truth" has something to do with the self-verifying truth of the reliability of reason?
Secondly, as you noted, you have to start with a truth claim. You can use logic to progress to another truth and another and another, but you will never be able to generate new truth. Truth must either be observed, accepted, or derived. Observed truth would be something to the effect that oranges are orange, grass is green, or light travels at 186K miles/sec. Accepted truth would be things like, "I exist," "God exists," "Memory is reliable," "The world is as it seems," etc. Derived truth would be that truth that is arrived at from a comparison of two or more truth statements, such as:
1) Satan worshipers have strange powers
2) The Yankees have won a disproportionate amount of championships
3) Thus, the Yankees are Satan worshipers
Seriously, I'll assume you get my point. In relationship to your argument, it seems to me that God's existence would be a derived truth, but derived truth must always work within the context of two or more given accepted truths, and I'm not sure that a progression of truths can do that. I think you need to clarify that point.
God bless
Secondly, as you noted, you have to start with a truth claim. You can use logic to progress to another truth and another and another, but you will never be able to generate new truth. Truth must either be observed, accepted, or derived. Observed truth would be something to the effect that oranges are orange, grass is green, or light travels at 186K miles/sec. Accepted truth would be things like, "I exist," "God exists," "Memory is reliable," "The world is as it seems," etc. Derived truth would be that truth that is arrived at from a comparison of two or more truth statements, such as:
1) Satan worshipers have strange powers
2) The Yankees have won a disproportionate amount of championships
3) Thus, the Yankees are Satan worshipers
Seriously, I'll assume you get my point. In relationship to your argument, it seems to me that God's existence would be a derived truth, but derived truth must always work within the context of two or more given accepted truths, and I'm not sure that a progression of truths can do that. I think you need to clarify that point.
God bless
-
fizzzzzzzzzzzy
- Newbie Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Suwanee, GA
-
Anonymous