Transcendental Argument for Nonexistence of God

[jmvizanko]

To bring it back to your OP, you speak of god being limited by logical contradictions, like the square-circle. But what the argument fails to take into account is that this logic holds true only for our universe. Add an extra dimension of time and a couple of extra spatial dimensions and you've got your object that is both a square and a circle. Place the object in our universe which lacks the physical laws to express such an entity and we'd no doubt see it as alternating between the two states, one moment a square, the next a circle. It's not a limit of god or the object, but a limit of our universe and thus of our ability to observe and perceive.

As is being discussed in my Pi, mathematical philosphy thread, you are actually wrong. Euclidean squares and circles are only capable of being exactly what they are. God cannot make a Euclidean square that is also a Euclidean circle. It doesn't matter what universe you are in, these logical structures are what they are. Unless I misunderstood you.

 

[Jobar]

Meow Mix, I see similarities between your argument here and the Euthyphro dilemma; instead of questioning whether morality/the 'good' is above God, or is decided by God, you do the same thing with logic. Does God govern logic, or does logic govern God?

The only defense against your argument that I can see is the one made by Baydwin; which is basically that logic is not precisely applicable to a changing reality. Logic, like mathematics, strictly applies only to unchanging, abstract concepts, not to real, changing objects or individuals.

You can turn that back on her, though. Is God changing, so that God(moment 1) =/= God(moment 2)? She's saying God isn't an absolute, I think.

Others have pointed out that logic doesn't apply to God(s), or any mystical experience. OK, I accept that. (I'm a *Zen* atheist. ) BUT! Language IS based on logic, and thus any concept or being to which logic is inapplicable, cannot be meaningfully communicated via language. And so, nothing meaningful can ever be said about God, if God is beyond logic.

Which is what Lao Tzu meant by the first verses of the Tao Te Ching-
"The Tao which can be spoken is not the ultimate Tao."

And hence, any attempt by any believer in a supernatural being to speak of that being, is totally meaningless, and they should stop talking nonsense!

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix, I see similarities between your argument here and the Euthyphro dilemma; instead of questioning whether morality/the 'good' is above God, or is decided by God, you do the same thing with logic. Does God govern logic, or does logic govern God?

The only defense against your argument that I can see is the one made by Baydwin; which is basically that logic is not precisely applicable to a changing reality. Logic, like mathematics, strictly applies only to unchanging, abstract concepts, not to real, changing objects or individuals.

You can turn that back on her, though. Is God changing, so that God(moment 1) =/= God(moment 2)? She's saying God isn't an absolute, I think.

Others have pointed out that logic doesn't apply to God(s), or any mystical experience. OK, I accept that. (I'm a *Zen* atheist. ) BUT! Language IS based on logic, and thus any concept or being to which logic is inapplicable, cannot be meaningfully communicated via language. And so, nothing meaningful can ever be said about God, if God is beyond logic.

Which is what Lao Tzu meant by the first verses of the Tao Te Ching-
"The Tao which can be spoken is not the ultimate Tao."

And hence, any attempt by any believer in a supernatural being to speak of that being, is totally meaningless, and they should stop talking nonsense!

I agree with most of what you've said! However, I must ask: how can something be conceived if it can't be communicated if it isn't strictly qualia (such as how I perceive the color "red")?

Qualia never incorporates real information as far as I've understood it, and you seem to be suggesting that things can be understood about God (or Tao, which I'm woefully ignorant of -- sorry!) which are incommunicable/ineffable. I suppose it's a moot question to ask for an explanation for how that can be the case, come to think of it, though.

Let me try turning it around by making the assertion that I doubt the possibility, since in order for it to be possible that thing which is conceived would have to somehow violate logic or be "beyond" logic (the same thing, if you ask me). In what way is this possible?

 

[Jobar]

You can't apply logic to what is unknown. Nor can you apply meaningful words to some real possibility about which you have no information or evidence. And no reasonable person denies that there are lots of things unknown to him or her; indeed, there are lots of things unknown to the entire human race.

So, I doubt anyone would argue that there are things that are at present beyond logic.

Are there things that are never, ever knowable, and are unplumbable mysteries- and hence completely beyond logic? IMO that's unknown at present, too. We don't have a Theory of Everything in physics, and there are mathematical problems which seem to be essentially unsolvable; but I hesitate to definitely state that the universe is an impenetrable mystery. (I will say that I *suspect* that it is.)

 

[Jobar]

I might add that, IMO, the only possibly meaningful use of the word 'god' is in the pantheistic sense; that is, the entirety of the universe/reality, in all aspects known and unknown. That's the sense that Einstein meant it when he spoke of God as not playing dice. And the famous 19th-century freethinker Robert Ingersoll (a great hero of mine, even though I have ancestors who may have fought against the man during the Civil War) said that 'pantheist' came closest to describing his own beliefs.

 

[Jobar]

One more addition, concerning possible 'violations' of logic- look in Wikipedia for Bell's Inequality, and Aspect's experiment. Modern physics can already confuse the hell out of philosophers and logicians!

 

[Meow Mix]

You can't apply logic to what is unknown. Nor can you apply meaningful words to some real possibility about which you have no information or evidence. And no reasonable person denies that there are lots of things unknown to him or her; indeed, there are lots of things unknown to the entire human race.

So, I doubt anyone would argue that there are things that are at present beyond logic.

Well that depends on what you mean. We can apply logic to what is unknown: for instance, I don't know what's on a planet somewhere in Andromeda, but I can be sure that it is what it is and not something else (i.e., has identity). The same can be said even for immaterial things; it's not just that we don't know of any square-circles on Euclidean planes but that there can't be square-circles on Euclidean planes.

Things which violate logic can't exist at all in any respect, not even in our imagination.

Are there things that are never, ever knowable, and are unplumbable mysteries- and hence completely beyond logic? IMO that's unknown at present, too. We don't have a Theory of Everything in physics, and there are mathematical problems which seem to be essentially unsolvable; but I hesitate to definitely state that the universe is an impenetrable mystery. (I will say that I *suspect* that it is.)

I agree with you here. Agnosticism as Huxley put it is to believe that some problems are insoluble -- not just because we don't know it now, but can't in principle. He even stated that he finds he must be agnostic about agnosticism itself; after all, does he really know that some problems are unknowable? I think he was onto something, and I find it unfortunate that many people mistake Huxley's agnosticism for a mere lack of knowledge.

I might add that, IMO, the only possibly meaningful use of the word 'god' is in the pantheistic sense; that is, the entirety of the universe/reality, in all aspects known and unknown. That's the sense that Einstein meant it when he spoke of God as not playing dice. And the famous 19th-century freethinker Robert Ingersoll (a great hero of mine, even though I have ancestors who may have fought against the man during the Civil War) said that 'pantheist' came closest to describing his own beliefs.

Can't forget Spinoza either I don't really find "God as the universe" concepts to be very meaningful, though. Might as well call a sock God. Why not just call it "the universe?" It doesn't carry all those strange connotations of a conscious creator being.

One more addition, concerning possible 'violations' of logic- look in Wikipedia for Bell's Inequality, and Aspect's experiment. Modern physics can already confuse the hell out of philosophers and logicians!

Only the ones which are bad at metaphysics. Bell's inequality shows that QM in its current form must either abandon locality or realism. Science can do neither, which is why Bohr instructed us for the time being to "shut up and calculate." There are no aspects of quantum physics that truly violate logic, and the popular science media has doon a poor job of relaying that: yes, there are ideas like quantum superposition that appear to violate excluded middle and noncontradiction but they aren't real, they're thought-tools.

Just like Feynman's many-paths integral treats a particle as though it takes literally all paths -- from here to there, backwards then forwards, to Mars and back, to the far ends of the universe and back -- doesn't mean that the particle is actually doing so; it's just a thought-tool that happens to produce correct answers -- as Feynman noted.

Realism is returning to quantum physics though with the rise of decoherence (which explains why there is an appearance of a wave-function, which doesn't really exist) and more scientists willing to build a more complete quantum theoretical framework that doesn't force a decision between locality or realism. Einstein would be proud; and I think for good reason.

 

[Zadok]

First, let me be clear by what is meant by a "transcendental argument for the nonexistence of God." This isn't an argument that defeats the existence of all possible gods, it's only aimed at a certain conception of God. If someone believes in a god that doesn't possess the qualities that this argument attacks, then it obviously doesn't apply.

Many conceptions of God suppose that God is the creator of all things external to God, that God has control over everything external to God, and furthermore that God isn't contingent on any higher transcendental "truths" than God. My argument (which amplifies the first published transcendental argument for the non-existence of God by Michael Martin) aims to show that God is not the creator of all things external to God, that God does not have control over everything external to God, and that God is contingent on higher transcendental "truths" than God, so that therefore any God attributed with those characteristics can't exist.

1) "God is the creator of all things external to God"

The Law of Identity describes a state of affairs in which something is itself, formulated symbolically as A = A. This state of affairs is both self-evident and incorrigible, which is what epistemologists would call "properly basic," meaning that it's necessarily true because even its negation assumes its efficacy.

For example, if I were to even hypothetically say, "The Law of Identity is false," to what am I referring? The Law of Identity. Is the Law of Identity the Law of Identity? Yes! To even attempt to doubt it, I have to assume its truth -- which is ultimately self-refuting. There are volumes on this subject, but let us just keep in mind for now that identity is incorrigibly true.

Is identity part of God? Well, it's true that God = God (identity), and that God must be either God or not-God (excluded middle), and that God can't be both God and not-God at the same time and in the same respect (noncontradiction), so clearly God exemplifies identity. This doesn't mean identity is part of God though, since every last one of us exemplifies identity.

For example, my name is Erin and I exemplify identity. Erin = Erin, but identity is external to me. Why would I say this? Because if I never existed, things would still be what they are (and they wouldn't be what they aren't). So identity isn't a part of me, it's just an attribute I possess.

If God didn't exist, would identity continue to exist? Yes. Let's say that the proposition "God exists" is represented by the character X.

Is ¬X = ¬X true? Yes, we must agree that it is. Clearly, identity would still function just fine in the absence of God just as it functions in the absence of Erin.

Thus, identity is external to God. This is important because it brings us to the next question: can God create identity?

Consider for a second the absurdity of God trying to create identity. How could God be God in the first place to create identity if identity weren't already inherently true?

If identity is external to God, and God can't create identity, then God didn't create all things external to God. This suggests there is a higher transcendental "truth" than God, and therefore God can't be the highest transcendental reality. (Out the window, all you old and dusty ontological arguments for God!)

2. "God has control over everything external to God"

Does God have control over identity? Even some of the most die-hard theologians would argue that God doesn't. Let's ignore for a second the bizarre cart-before-the-horse ramifications of God controling a higher transcendental "truth" than God and ask:

Can God create a square that is a circle at the same time and in the same respect?
Can God exist and not-exist at the same time and in the same respect?
Can God be absolutely benevolent and absolutely malevolent at the same time and in the same respect?

I think we would have some intersting thinkers on our hands, indeed, if they answered yes to either of these questions.

Furthermore, many theists argue that it's "against God's nature" to be malevolent. For these folks in particular: do you see how saying that God is unable to do something "because of his nature" suggests that God conforms to higher transcendental truths which are outside of the control of God?

Since God is unable to change God's own nature, or to actualize logical contradictions, God is not able to controll all things external to God.

3) "God isn't contingent on any higher transcendental truths"

As I've argued from (1) and (2), this must clearly be the case. God is contingent on higher transcendental states of affairs.

Now this really raises some tough ramifications. For one, any kind of ontological argument for the existence of God that relies on God being "that which nothing greater can be conceived" fail immediately and inherently. This is the most serious consequence of this line of argument, and where I rest my case against such arguments.

Secondly, the three statements that I tackled can't be said to be true of any god. This is far less serious, since any rational theist can go right on believing in a god that's contingent on higher transcendental truths.

However, this really raises the most hair-raising question: if God wasn't necessary to cause identity, then we have at least one non-God thing that exists independently of God's creation that even theists must logically admit given the argument is sound. There goes theistic arguments that God is necessary to explain any non-God existence at all! While it doesn't follow from the argument, it does set the stage for the question: why should we assume the existence of the material universe must be explained as "created" or "beginning" in the first place?

You decide.

------------------------
EDIT: Oh yeah, PS. I forgot to mention that this argument also undercuts the basis for the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. Whoops! Tiny oversight.

I find this interesting - however there are terms that are undefined that could be problems with this thinking. For example the term create. If we define create from nothing as the meaning of creation then I agree with you - but if create means to order of effect then I disagree. Since I do not believe creation comes from nothing - I find the logic interesting but for me there is no application.

Zadok

 

[Meow Mix]

I find this interesting - however there are terms that are undefined that could be problems with this thinking. For example the term create. If we define create from nothing as the meaning of creation then I agree with you - but if create means to order of effect then I disagree. Since I do not believe creation comes from nothing - I find the logic interesting but for me there is no application.

Zadok

Fair enough, it truly doesn't apply if the premises aren't believed.

Are LDS folks fine with the existence of higher transcendental truths to God like identity, which God exemplifies (and is therefore contingent upon) and cannot control?

It begs the question: if there is something which necessarily exists that didn't come from God and God can't control, why is a God necessary to explain the universe itself? Granted, this argument doesn't demonstrate the universe itself is necessarily existent, but I still fail to see why gods are necessary to explain anything at all.

 

[Reptillian]

I know Zen Buddhists and Neils Bohr might disagree some of your reasoning. Perhaps logical contradictions aren't what they seem to our minds. Reminds me of wave/particle duality and the idea of complimentarity.

I'm sure you've seen this picture before:

Now we could ask if its "really" a picture of an old woman or a young woman. We might even insist that it can't be both since their such opposite things old/young. Certainly we can't see both the old woman and young woman in the picture at the same time. The objective thing that is the picture, the lines making it up...those exist independently of our ideas concerning its subject matter. When taken together the old woman/young woman cover both the human ways of thinking about the picture's interpretation so that it can be completely understood. Opposites are compliments.

 

[Meow Mix]

I know Zen Buddhists and Neils Bohr might disagree some of your reasoning. Perhaps logical contradictions aren't what they seem to our minds. Reminds me of wave/particle duality and the idea of complimentarity.

Actually, Bohr was one of the realists along with Heisenberg who didn't give ontological credence to the concept of wave/particle duality being real, just a thought-tool that we can use to "shut up and calculate."

I'm sure you've seen this picture before:

Now we could ask if its "really" a picture of an old woman or a young woman. We might even insist that it can't be both since their such opposite things old/young. Certainly we can't see both the old woman and young woman in the picture at the same time. The objective thing that is the picture, the lines making it up...those exist independently of our ideas concerning its subject matter. When taken together the old woman/young woman cover both the human ways of thinking about the picture's interpretation so that it can be completely understood. Opposites are compliments.

As you noted, though, the picture doesn't violate identity, excluded middle or noncontradiction because it is what it is. It's a matter of psychology that we can make it out to be different things by abstracting different aspects from it -- just like the "face" on Mars can be looked at either like a face or a big hill, it's ultimately what it is and not what it's not.

 

[Mister Emu]

For one thing, identity isn't necessarily conceptual. To be immaterial doesn't necessarily equate to being a concept.

Could you explain this further?

Next, identity has itself to identify even in the absense of anything else.

Of course this would assume the existence of identity.

Let's say that P is "the existence of everything."

What happens with the proposition ¬P? It actually refutes itself, since ¬P = ¬P (otherwise it could become the existence of everything rather than the nonexistence of everything).

Maybe I'm being contrarian, but it seems a little off to lable nothingness. By labeling it you turn it into a thing. Also, by labeling it notP(sorry, don't know that fancy symbol ), you are assuming P exists for nothingness to possibly be. In the absence of anything there is nothing to be.

As a side note, I don't think it's possible for certain immaterial "objects" like the number two not to exist either. Call me a neo-Platonist like Gödel.

See... I'm not sure I agree with that. How can the idea of two exist without multiple objects, or the concept of multiple objects, for which it to describe?

Even if God is the only thing in existence, God has certain limitations. Identity is essentially another word for limitations. God is limited from being wholly a pink unicorn, since God is God. God is limited from being a square-circle.

I think you've strengthened my argument. You describe identity as a limitation in relation to the other. In the absence of the other, where does that leave identity? If there is nothing else to be, what coherence has a limitation on not being something else?

Identity is a relationship between things. Things are themselves, and cannot be other things. I think it could be fair to say God brought identity into existence with the creation of the other.

No human being can even make that suggestion because it has a necessarily false antecedent.

I don't think it is the same thing to say that maybe a rule can be broken and maybe a rule doesn't exist at all

"If the number two were odd, then it would be a horse," Alvin Plantinga told me in one of our correspondences.

True chaos would be... chaos...

 

[Willamena]

The same can be said even for immaterial things; it's not just that we don't know of any square-circles on Euclidean planes but that there can't be square-circles on Euclidean planes.

Things which violate logic can't exist at all in any respect, not even in our imagination.

That's not a logical contradiction, though, but a definitional one. Squares have 4 sides, circles have none.

I agree with you here. Agnosticism as Huxley put it is to believe that some problems are insoluble -- not just because we don't know it now, but can't in principle. He even stated that he finds he must be agnostic about agnosticism itself; after all, does he really know that some problems are unknowable? I think he was onto something, and I find it unfortunate that many people mistake Huxley's agnosticism for a mere lack of knowledge.

Just so.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's not a logical contradiction, though, but a definitional one. Squares have 4 sides, circles have none.

Definitional contradictions are logical contradictions though. A "definition" simply tells us what something is (and allows us to exclude what it isn't), which is identity.

 

[Meow Mix]

Could you explain this further?

Immaterial things aren't necessarily conceptual if they exist externally to minds. For instance, if there were no minds but a universe, then there would still be a universe... it would still have X number of stars even if no one counted them, and those stars would still be what they are even if no one could describe the state of affairs of something being what it is.

Consider a configuration space, which is like a pocket universe with only a few things in it: let's talk about a 3-point configuration space as if it were real. This means only 3 Euclidean points exist in this thought experiment. If that were what existed and no minds were around to conceive it, it would still be true that there were "three" points (even without a word for it); it would still be true that there were 180 degrees total between the points (even without anyone to define what an "angle" is), and so on.

Minds don't create identity and maths, they just describe them using words and symbols. We do create the words and symbols, but that which we're describing is external to our minds and thus not conceptual. "Concepts" are limited to minds... an example of a true concept would be mathematical syntax (1 + 1 = 2... the symbols and arrangement of symbols, not the mathematical objects that we name "one" and "two") or the qualia (the experience of seeing red or smelling the scent of baked cookies).

Of course this would assume the existence of identity.

Not an assumption, a tautology.

Maybe I'm being contrarian, but it seems a little off to lable nothingness. By labeling it you turn it into a thing. Also, by labeling it notP(sorry, don't know that fancy symbol ), you are assuming P exists for nothingness to possibly be. In the absence of anything there is nothing to be.

I only label it because it's convenient. Ultimately the question comes down to whether nothingness can be somethingness.

If it can't -- notice that word, can't -- then it has a limitation, which is identity.

If it can be somethingness, then it isn't nothingness at all, is it? Yet therein lies the contradiction.

If nothingness can't be somethingness, then it has identity, which is something.

If nothingness can be somethingness, then it was never "nothingness" in the first place.

Therefore true "nothingness" is impossible since even then identity necessarily exists -- which makes sense, considering it's an incorrigible tautology.

See... I'm not sure I agree with that. How can the idea of two exist without multiple objects, or the concept of multiple objects, for which it to describe?

Here's how: suppose there is only a mind that exists. That mind can think about nothing. It can then think about thinking about nothing. It can then think about thinking about thinking about nothing.

With maths, I'm just describing essentially the ability of the null set, Ø, to give existence to all of mathematics.

As a quick primer, a set is just a category of mathematical objects... the set of all even numbers is {2,4,6,8,...} and the set of all even numbers between 4 and 10 is {4,6,8,10} and so on. There is an empty set, { } (also described with the symbol Ø) which is nothing. Thinking about nothing is Ø, and thinking about thinking about nothing is the set that contains the null set {Ø}. Thinking about thinking about thinking about nothing is the set that contains the set that contains the null set {{Ø}}.

Suddenly -- from nothing -- there are things to count which are wholly immaterial!

It can go on and on... you can also have the set of those sets in sequential order, which would look like {{Ø}, Ø} and the set after that {{{Ø}, Ø}, {Ø}, Ø} and so on... once you have things to count, all of mathematics follows -- from nothing! (Nothing material anyway)

I think you've strengthened my argument. You describe identity as a limitation in relation to the other. In the absence of the other, where does that leave identity? If there is nothing else to be, what coherence has a limitation on not being something else?

As described above, if you agree that "nothing" can't be "something," then you must agree it has identity.

Identity is a relationship between things. Things are themselves, and cannot be other things. I think it could be fair to say God brought identity into existence with the creation of the other.

That would be putting the cart before the horse. If God created identity, how was God God in the first place to create it?

I don't think it is the same thing to say that maybe a rule can be broken and maybe a rule doesn't exist at all

That's true for things like natural laws, which are contingent -- but logic isn't contingent. It isn't possible to self-consistently assert that identity can ever even possibly false.

 

[ellenjanuary]

The problem with philosophy is that it requires things like "reason" and "actual reality;" fine and dandy for the ritualized warfare of academic debate, but having little to do with the real world. God? Reason? Reality? Religion? How many logical fallacies just appeared?

I'm a naive philosopher. I like simplicity. Book says "God is." Let us break that down. God? Pass. Is? Being. Being is something that can be evaluated by science - doesn't exist in a causal, entropic universe. Case closed. God does not exist.

And believe it - God can handle both existing and not existing - probably a fistful more states besides - it is those who would utilize the existence of God who suffer from a non- existing God. No skin off of my nose. I ain't telling God what to do.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Consider a configuration space, which is like a pocket universe with only a few things in it...

Wow. I'm a little... excited.

 

[kingdombuilder]

...My argument (which amplifies the first published transcendental argument for the non-existence of God by Michael Martin) aims to show that God is not the creator of all things external to God...

- A strawman argument already. Your argument appears to be an attempt to refute the Christian/Monotheistic Creator God. The only problem is that no knowlegable Christian who understands the Biblical teaching on God argues that God is the creator of all things external to Himself. What is argued is that all things are in one way or another contingent upon (owe their existence upon) God.

The Law of Identity describes a state of affairs in which something is itself, formulated symbolically as A = A....
For example, if I were to even hypothetically say, "The Law of Identity is false," to what am I referring? The Law of Identity. Is the Law of Identity the Law of Identity? Yes!...

-Case in point. Would the Law of identity exist even if nothing were in existence? As you stated, the law of identity "describes...something." The law of identity is a logical concept, it is a law of logic. In order for it to exist at all there must first be 2 necessary prior conditions. 1: a mind and 2: something that exists to be described or identified to begin with. In other words, the law of identity is itself a contingent concept. It owes its existence to something prior to itself.


If God didn't exist, would identity continue to exist? Yes. Let's say that the proposition "God exists" is represented by the character X.

Is ¬X = ¬X true? Yes, we must agree that it is. Clearly, identity would still function just fine in the absence of God just as it functions in the absence of Erin.

- No, the law of identity would not exist if God did not exist. Why? Your premise here is true only if one grants the hidden assumption that there are minds and things to be identified that are not contingent upon God for their existence to begin with. I of course do not grant this assumption.

Thus, identity is external to God. This is important because it brings us to the next question: can God create identity?

- Another strawman, rather a continuation of one. No serious and informed Christian argues that identity is not external to God. Again, it is contingent upon Him.

Consider for a second the absurdity of God trying to create identity. How could God be God in the first place to create identity if identity weren't already inherently true?

- It is inherently true only because of the two prior conditions mentioned above.

If identity is external to God, and God can't create identity, then God didn't create all things external to God. This suggests there is a higher transcendental "truth" than God, and therefore God can't be the highest transcendental reality. (Out the window, all you old and dusty ontological arguments for God!)...

Not true, as shown above. Again, the argument here against God fails because it begins upon a false premise and because it fails to take into account that the Law of Identity is itself a contingent concept.

You are right however in pointing out that your argument is against only a particular concept of God. I am just not sure it is the God you intended to argue against.

- I apologize for the quotes within the posted quote above, for some reason the multiple quote response function did not work when I posted. I probally did something wrong.

 

[Mudcat]

1) "God is the creator of all things external to God"

The Law of Identity describes a state of affairs in which something is itself, formulated symbolically as A = A. This state of affairs is both self-evident and incorrigible, which is what epistemologists would call "properly basic," meaning that it's necessarily true because even its negation assumes its efficacy.

For example, if I were to even hypothetically say, "The Law of Identity is false," to what am I referring? The Law of Identity. Is the Law of Identity the Law of Identity? Yes! To even attempt to doubt it, I have to assume its truth -- which is ultimately self-refuting. There are volumes on this subject, but let us just keep in mind for now that identity is incorrigibly true.

Is identity part of God? Well, it's true that God = God (identity), and that God must be either God or not-God (excluded middle), and that God can't be both God and not-God at the same time and in the same respect (noncontradiction), so clearly God exemplifies identity. This doesn't mean identity is part of God though, since every last one of us exemplifies identity.

For example, my name is Erin and I exemplify identity. Erin = Erin, but identity is external to me. Why would I say this? Because if I never existed, things would still be what they are (and they wouldn't be what they aren't). So identity isn't a part of me, it's just an attribute I possess.

If God didn't exist, would identity continue to exist? Yes. Let's say that the proposition "God exists" is represented by the character X.

Is ¬X = ¬X true? Yes, we must agree that it is. Clearly, identity would still function just fine in the absence of God just as it functions in the absence of Erin.

Thus, identity is external to God. This is important because it brings us to the next question: can God create identity?

Consider for a second the absurdity of God trying to create identity. How could God be God in the first place to create identity if identity weren't already inherently true?

If identity is external to God, and God can't create identity, then God didn't create all things external to God. This suggests there is a higher transcendental "truth" than God, and therefore God can't be the highest transcendental reality. (Out the window, all you old and dusty ontological arguments for God!)

Hi MM,

I think Hume's bundle theory wreaks havoc on the the notion of A=A. You could say that "the properties of A"="the properties of A" however A itself is without substance.

Taking Hume's lead, the Law of Identity is false. Not because the Law of Identity is not the Law of Identity. Rather, because identity does not exist.

As you eloquently coin a special pleading for identity. "So identity isn't a part of me, it's just an attribute I possess." Could you give me a definition of identity, that wouldn't refute itself by referring to some other property? I think this is critical to your case, and feel you will be hard pressed to deliver.

The you boldly say, "If God didn't exist, would identity continue to exist? Yes."
But this is nonsense. If God is the creator, then by what reason would identity still exist?

I understand that your rather novel proof, is simply an exploded view of one of the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. In which, God himself must answer in some respect to an overarching identity. Yet you have no definition of such an identity, so I consider your point 1 as simply question begging.

Your turn,

Mudcat

 

[Meow Mix]

- A strawman argument already. Your argument appears to be an attempt to refute the Christian/Monotheistic Creator God. The only problem is that no knowlegable Christian who understands the Biblical teaching on God argues that God is the creator of all things external to Himself. What is argued is that all things are in one way or another contingent upon (owe their existence upon) God.

I didn't specify Christianity as far as I remember; only anyone who believes in a god which creates all non-God and isn't contingent on any non-God.

I question how a creator-god isn't the "creator of all things," can you expound upon that?

-Case in point. Would the Law of identity exist even if nothing were in existence? As you stated, the law of identity "describes...something." The law of identity is a logical concept, it is a law of logic. In order for it to exist at all there must first be 2 necessary prior conditions. 1: a mind and 2: something that exists to be described or identified to begin with. In other words, the law of identity is itself a contingent concept. It owes its existence to something prior to itself.

Yes, it most certainly would exist if nothing else were in existence. It can describe itself, and since it exists necessarily, it necessarily always has something to describe.

It does not require a mind to exist; its truth is incorrigible and needn't be conceived to be true. Things are what they are regardless of whether we're "watching." As Einstein said, "Do you really believe the moon isn't there if you're not looking?"

It can't be a contingent concept -- think about the absurdity. You say, "It owes its existence to something prior to itself." Was that "something" itself before or after it created identity? See the self-contradiction? You're asserting the cart came before the horse.

- No, the law of identity would not exist if God did not exist. Why? Your premise here is true only if one grants the hidden assumption that there are minds and things to be identified that are not contingent upon God for their existence to begin with. I of course do not grant this assumption.

The ball's in your court -- you're the one making the self-refuting claim that identity can be contingent. The statement "X is contingent on Y" is a positive claim that requires justification; so if you want to argue that, it's up to you to demonstrate it. I will warn you, though, that due to identity's incorrigibility all such attempts will fail as surely as all attempts to say with words "I doubt words have meaning," since both entail blatant self-contradictions. I will listen, though, if you want to try.

Not true, as shown above. Again, the argument here against God fails because it begins upon a false premise and because it fails to take into account that the Law of Identity is itself a contingent concept.

You are right however in pointing out that your argument is against only a particular concept of God. I am just not sure it is the God you intended to argue against.

- I apologize for the quotes within the posted quote above, for some reason the multiple quote response function did not work when I posted. I probally did something wrong.

There was no false premise -- I laid out exactly what the premises were attacking; if you believe in a particular brand of theism that the premises don't describe I said plain as day that the argument doesn't apply to anything that doesn't match my premises. If you don't believe God creates all non-God then it doesn't apply. If you don't believe that there can't be transcendental truths external to God then it doesn't apply, etc.

As for the quotes, there's not a button that you press... rather you have to use the commands {quote=Meow Mix} at the beginning of a quote and then {/quote} at the end... substitute hard brackets [ and ] for the brackets used above though, and of course if you're quoting someone besides me you'd type their name after the = sign.

Thanks for the discussion, I look forward to your response.