View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 08:46 PM
Theaetetus's Avatar
Theaetetus Theaetetus is offline
Antidisinformationalist
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Milwaukee, USA
Posts: 567
Thanks: 109
Thanked 149 Times in 120 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Rep Power: 2
Theaetetus has a spectacular aura aboutTheaetetus has a spectacular aura about
Re: A proof of God's self-evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protoman2050 View Post
I have an argument that God is self-evident:

Aquinas said that, because "The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps 14:1, NASB), the existence of God is not self-evident (Summa Theologica, Question 2, Article 1). Well, if there is no God, why, pray tell, is there a word for Him? Every concept can be described by a word (or words), and every word (or words) describe a concept. My paraphrase of Proposition 7 of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. For all x(C(x)<->W(x)). There exists a word for God. Therefore, there must be an associated concept for that word "God", namely God. This merely proves that God exists as an idea in our minds. Going one step further, since according to Hume all ideas are images of sense impressions (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, part 2), our idea of God is a dim copy of the real God, something that our finite minds can grasp. But where did that sense-impression come from? It could be as simple as Ps 19:1, NASB -- "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." The universe is simply too fine-tuned, complex, and delicate to be anything but the product of an omnipotent Designer, and our idea of Him is but a mere copy of our sense-impression of Him, which is but a mere image of Him as He really is. So therefore, not only does God exist, he is much more than our conception of him. QED.

Is my symbolic logic correct?

Can anyone analyze or refute this? Am I echoing another philosopher?

Thanks!
Because God is not self-evident I would say that your conclusions do not follow the premise. You cannot take others' words out of context to prove your conclusions. Hume would never argue that all ideas are images of sense impressions when applied to the idea of God. Remember Hume was an empiricist dealing with the practical not the abstract. Thus, you are turning Hume's philosophy on its head for your proof. That invalidates you proof.

Here is a different example of your argument. Because "God" is a word and the idea of God exists in our minds is meaningless. "Invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" are words and the idea of an invisible pink unicorn exists in my brain. Where did that idea come from? Does it mean that the invisible pink unicorn exists and is much more than my conception of it?
Reply With Quote