Deductive reasoning and the existence of god?

Question: Deductive reasoning and the existence of god!?

Philosophical approach of existence of god:

God exists:

-Some things are moved!.
-Everything that is moved is moved by a mover!.
-An infinite regress of movers is impossible!.
-Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds!.
-This mover is what we call God!.

God doesnt exist:

- If God exists, then he is perfect!.
- If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe!.
- If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect!.
- But the universe is not perfect!.
- Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4)!.
- Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)!.

I find hard to believe that some people take these deductive reasonings seriously but lets put that aside, which do you think is a 'stronger' deductive reasoning!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

I know very little about philosophy or critical thinking but to flat out answer your question, I think the God exists argument is a little more convincing!.

The second syllogism would be confusing because of the question of the definition of perfection and God and a perfect universe!. Then we could get into a huge discussion of how we perceive the universe!. Is it perfect!? Is it not!? Is it imperfect because we can see how it could be changed!? Is a perfect universe set up for change!? Does room for change imply perfection or imperfection!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

DEDUCTIVE REASONING and the EXISTANCE OF GOD!.

Are CONTRADICTORY TERMS, in that!. The imaginary perspective of a 'GOD', as is put forward by whatever religion you are a part of!. Has nothing WHAT SO EVER, to do with DEDUCTIVE REASONING, and vice versa of course!.

As DR is based around SUBSTANTIATED, INARGUABLE FACT!.
The mere thought, that an all POWERFUL, existential Being exists!. Is anything but SUBSTANTIATED or INARGUABLE!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

For "God exists":
"Everything that is moved is moved by a mover" if a falacy!.

For "God doesn't exist"
"If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect" is a falacy too (the being may want to create something not perfect for some perfect reason)!.

The second reasoning makes a little bit more sense to me anyway!. Of course, as none of them is actually valid, this does not clear out whether God exists or not!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Logic isn't my strongest area, but there are assumptions in a few premises!.

"The Universe is not perfect!." - I would say it is!. For one, it's exactly the way it is at every moment it is!. We can play with the idea of perfection, but the fact of the matter will remain that we'll only be arguing semantics!. Perfection is a word, based largely on subjective idealized preferences of pleasure, pain or spiritual enlightenment!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

God does exists, my sisters first year of philosiphy: the teacher says who are catholic a few stand up including my sister and he call on a guy and tells him, If you can not see it or feel it it can't exist, so how can you tell me God exist!. The man sits down and says I can't!. He calls on another guy and ask him the same question!. THe guy says has anyone ever seen your brain or touched your brain before, the teacher aswers no and the guy continues so in that case can we belive that your brain doesn't exist and this time the teacher sits down and says this is going to be a good class!. so can you prove that God doesn't exist!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

The exersize is as important as blowing into a bottle!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Tis hard to get at deeply buried nuts !!!

Auzziegob just returned from the Nuthouse !

Why was Auzziegob there !?Www@QuestionHome@Com

The two examples are equally valid!. An argument is valid if accepting the premises means you have to accept the conclusion or be inconsistent!.

How "good" is either argument is another question!. Generally speaking Modus Tolens (the second one) is much the more powerful!. In the first we just increase the number of premises we have!. We have not established any of the arguments as true, this would require establishing the premises as true, which would require premises that in turn would have to be established as true and so on ad infinitum!.

The second, however, has shown that something is wrong!. Knowing that something is wrong is better than going on thinking all is fine, it enables you to formulate new hypotheses that can better stand up to critical scrutiny!.

So I would say that the second is better!.

[Edit] "does vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream taste better!?" is a perfectly sensible question!. "which is more ice cream vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream!?" is not!.

Just because a dichotomy can be phrased does not mean that there is a choice!. Indeed trying to insist on an answer can be dangerous!. Consider the consequences of insisitng on an answer to the following question:

"Are black or white people more human!?"

[Edit2]
Actually, the way it is written, the first argument is invalid!. "An infinite regress of movers" is only necessary if everything that is moved is moved by something prior (in some sense to it)!. If the impartation of movement is instantaneous then all things moved can be moving each other (by bashing into each other)!. There would thus be no need for an un-moved mover!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

'Stronger', or strength, doesn't apply to deductive reasoning!.

A deductive argument is valid or it is not valid!. There are no degrees of validity!.

An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false!. For the purpose of testing validity, the premises are assumed to be true!.

The arguments you cite are valid!. The question then becomes, are they sound!? If you can find a premise that is not true, then the respective argument is not sound!. But, once you start trying to determine the actual truth values of the premises, you are no longer making an assessment of the reasoning (that the conclusion follows from the premises) of the argument, but instead you are observing the world - which has nothing to do with the reasoning (deductive validity) of the argument!.

**Edit:
If both arguments are valid, they are equally valid!. The only way that one argument can be 'more' valid than another is in the case where one argument is valid while the other is invalid!.

If you are focusing only on the 'reasonings', then you need only look to the structure of the arguments themselves!. You needn't check the premises for their actual truth values!. To check if the reasoning is valid, you need only determine if the conclusion must be true if the premises were true (assume they are)!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The terms in the first argument can be followed by experience!.
In the second syllogism we must assume if god exists he is perfect
and then assume again when it is stated that a perfect being is only capable of making a perfect creation
also we would have to define the term perfect and then establish evidence that supports the claim that the universe is not perfect!.
God defined as an unmoved mover is more valid in my opinion because it avoids many complications and middle term can be established as self evident from experience!.
Following just the rules of reasoning I would say that the Aristotle's is the better of the two!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Both are extremely weak for either case- the first one (due to Aquinas) denies the possibility of infinite regress and doesn't back the claim up (having it as a premise instead- almost considering it an axiom of reality) and the second assumes something equally questionable; that the universe is not perfect!. Perfection needs to be defined properly to be used as a predicate here!. For instance if the nature of a perfect being was such that he feels it necessary to create imperfect things inorder to see them through gradually to perfection, then the claim breaks down!.
However the stronger logic is perhaps for the second (a close call really), for it uses a lemma to justify a main point whereas the first sneaks a lemma in as a premise!. (Saints can be awfully tricky can't they!?)

again I only considered these for the merits of their reasoning structure and not the reasoning itself, they're both rather!.!.!. crappy (<---technical term) arguments!

A truly remarkable proof (or disproof) would not rely on emperical add-ons as these do!. In that sense Descartes' ontological argument (while faulty) is the closest they've come!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Please forgive me that i pop more questions to your question!.

God existed but can't be verified!?
then who or what have claimed that God have existed!?

when i moved, i chose to move or did someone pushed me!?
if someone push me, do i still have free will!?
if i moved myself yet blaming other pushing me, I'm simply self-denial!.

i am not perfect, isn't it my imperfection makes me a perfect human!? contradicting!?!?!?!?!?
Or is it the word PERFECT that man have foolishly created!?
or is it how we perceive PERFECTION differently!?

i do agree with you that there are people who take deductive reasoning so blindly!.

but yet again, does it make sense to reason with the unreasonable!?!?!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

You need to study further!.

It doesn't matter if God exists or if she doesn't exist!.

What matters is you!.

And I suggest further study!.

If only to put your deductive reasoning to rest!.

God exists, or you wouldn't be so curious!.

Leave God alone for now and further your study!.Www@QuestionHome@Com