From God's inexistence it follows God's

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 (vid. 3), 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.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

Greetings

quote:

---

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.

---

I think what you are saying is that if you hold a truth it will lead to more truth, but if it is not a truth it will lead to a falsehood.

If this is what you are saying, I believe differently. I believe that a person can have a truth and have no more if they put their blinders on and refuse to see anything else. For instance: "the trinity" The one God is broken up three ways. Why only three ways, or why break up God at all? Those who believe in the trinity will not question either or, because they believe they have the truth already and will not question any further.

quote:

---

Truth, which is God.

---

Good statement

items 3, 4 and 5 I found very confusing, however - if you are saying that one can believe that there is no God and learn that there is. Yea, I can agree with that.

I am completely iffy we number 1.

Second calling 'unattainable truth' God, is a fallacy. Unattainable truth is just that, it could be infinite evil, infinite good, nothing, everything, the quark or the quasar.

You can't have a fancy term and just label it 'God' to convince yourself.

Proving 1).

Arithmetic is a kind of language formed by numbers and operations. Every number is also a truth, and we express them as a tautology: "1 = 1"; "2 = 2"; "3 = 3", etc.

We know that "1" links to "2", and the same for the remaining infinite figures, from the fact that they are all related to each other. For instance: "2" is "1 + 1"; "3" is "2 + 1" or "1 + 1 + 1", etc.

So, if we change the meaning of a single number (let's say, "1 = 2", all of them and their infinite possible operations would be affected. Thus, by limiting the enchainment of truths with a non-truth, no arithmetical operation would be true. And that happens in our natural language too, since every word gets its meaning by opposing the other ones.


Proving 2).

I.

In an infinite succession of eternal truths (since the nature of the truth as not contradiction is immutable), the last truth, that at the same time is the first one, guarantees the coherence between all of them.

If there were infinite truths and, nevertheless, we were lack of last truth, we could not affirm that 'the truth is the truth', since every truth links to another one, none that is not over all of them is capable of embrace them at the same level.

Any truth that one affirms presupposes, then, this deep truth: 'the truth is the truth'. And that, far from being a tautology, indicates us that the truth can exist by itself, that is to say, without real concern, or ideal.

NB: By "first and last truth" I mean a primordial truth that presupposes every single one, and that is itself presupposed by all of them. I'm not thinking in a circle, but in a common trunk with infinite ramifications.

II.

1. The set of true statements is finite or infinite.

1.1. If it is finite, it is limited by a truth or by a non-truth.

1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God.

1.1.2. If it is limited by a non-truth, we are speaking of pseudo-truths which cover an unavoidable contradiction. In that case, the proposition "An infinite set of true statements limited by a non-truth exists" is false too, being nonsensical to claim such a thing.

1.2. If it is infinite, it has or it has not a first Truth.

1.2.1. If it has a first Truth at the beginning of the whole succession, then this Truth is self-referent, it is its own cause and, therefore, it is God. Its truth value doesn't need neither logic demonstration nor empirical verification, as far as it is self-depending.

1.2.2. If it has not a frist Truth, then the proposition "the truth is the truth" is false, which would abolish every single truth, sending us back to point 1.1.2.


The reasoning in 3), 4) and 5) follows from 1) and 2) as indicated in the first message. It doesn't need a further explanation.

Greetings.

Daniel.

"1.1.1. If it is limited by a truth, that truth is an unlimited one, that is, God."
Lets take the 'numbers example' which I thought was pretty good. 1=1, 2=2, 3=3. Your ultimate truth might be 0=0 or paradoxically, infinity=infinity.
But just because that final truth is paradoxal, strange and beyond us, doesn't mean you label it 'God' with all the implications that has?
What is God anyway?
Define what you are trying to prove then I will listen.
God I usually define as an omnipotent, omniscient entity (and sometimes omnibenevolent), infinity is not an entity.

God is unexplainable.
As much as we know, He is an entity that created, and is omnipotent.

How that is, is unattainable for the human mind. We have finite abilities while we persevere on earth.

As for His persona, loving, and giving. Jealous in a good way, as He has all rights to claim He created us, and should not share this with false, or pretend gods, or untruths.

He is also incomparably master.
He can create or destroy.

He will not let us wander too far away, but if our hearts remain hard, he as the maker, can take it all away.

We are nothing without him. We should be thanking him but instead deny him.
When we give glory to HIM, he relects that glory and blesses man beyond their wildest dreams.
Man's hearts are prone to evil and try to be an entity of and unto themselves...
They feel they do not need God. What a foolish notion, but then....they who do this, have never trusted in God..and therefore, never seen the power of his giving back to man, according to what they give to him..in homage and glory.

IF you give God all Glory and Honor due him..he doesnt take it in and please just himself with it.
He takes the love man gives, and shares it ten fold in return.

The common misconception that evil fills our minds with is..."Well, how come God can sit there and receive the Glory and leave you as a servant?"
The thing is...He is due the love, for all he gave, BUT being a generous God, he will take the love, and gratitude given, (AND mankind gives a small piece in comparison to what God gives...anyway)
He turns it back around...and the man is blessed so much in many ways, even in 'pain' His love will carry the cross for you.

Interestingly enough...when you offer up pain, it seems to subside...just an observation I made...myself.

irichc , obviously you dont study this field you speak so strongly about . your arguement is riddled with fallacy and false assumtions. Your not really worth me going into it that deeply , nor do i need to as in a few sentences i will have made my general point.
1.you falsy assume that there are truths as far as concepts are concernd
2. You are obviously not aware of the problems infinity raises and how although potentialy possable, it can never reach its actuality. even if 'god' was at the end of an infinte regression of truth , you would never reach 'him' to bring IT into existance.
3. god is not a him
4.im bord im bord , please think before you attemp to define god into existance.
P.S. this doesnt represent my own views on the existance of a deity

I'm not that good at math. I don't believe I could ever calculate God, but I don't figure it hurts to try.