ON A SIMILAR VERSION OF THE STORY
Tripod again screwed the text.
TThere are 3 common proof of the existence of god,
teleological, first cause, and ontological. Rene
Descartes added 3 more. All of them have been
properly rebutted. This one, a seventh, is flawed
or several reasons. The first one applies to all
proofs of god, it is a category mistake.
and logic can never prove the existence of a material
object. Language and logic cannot prove the existence
of a unicorn; it is an observational issue.
can prove that there are no round squares, because the
issue rests upon the meaning of the terms. To
that god is not of the same class of beings as unicorns
an observation having a very high degree of certainty is need.
Second, there is a misuse of language, for cold and
light have meanings different that the special
technical meaning given to them by physicists. The
meaning of fruit as used by biologists
cucumbers, green peppers, squash, and tomatoes.
It is a fallacy to use the term cold in the common
mode and to ask for its meaning, and then to fault
the professor for not
giving the technical meaning
one meaning of that term.
The interlocutor is
switching between the two meanings. A word can have
many meanings, but in a particular context
just one meaning. As Wittigenstein
of a word is its usage.
Third, there is put forth a claim that evil means
the absence of god, But, that was not how
professor used it when he asked the first student.
The logic of the
professor is correct. To switch
meaning is to repeat the language and logic
error of the previous paragraph.
Fourth. To claim that evil is the absence of god, is
the error of being circular; viz., to beg
the question. One cannot with valid logic prove X
exists by defining Y
as an attribute of X, and then
say there is Y therefore X exists—where X in this
case is god, and Y is good. God
can only be proved
by observations of the kind which the ideal observer,
skilled in science and logic, would find compelling.
The above disputation is of the cheer type, those who
are on god’s side cheer at the statement,
the proof sucks. It is like the proofs for
only one who has taken a side—evidence be damned—would
cheer at the proofs creationist scientists offer.