All about flooble | fun stuff | Get a free chatterbox | Free JavaScript | Avatars    
perplexus dot info

Home > Logic
Proof of Anything (Posted on 2003-12-13) Difficulty: 4 of 5
Here is a nice little paradox:

Statement S: If S is true then God exists
Logically, statement S must be either true or false.

1. Suppose S is false.

2. If S if false, then any statement that starts with "If S is true..." is true *(see note)

3. Specifically, the statement "If S is true then God exists" would be true

4. This is exactly what S says, so S would have to be true

5. This is in contradiction with 1., so S cannot be false.

6. Therefore S is true.

7. So the statement "If S is true then God exists" is true.

8. By modus ponens, since S is indeed true, then the second half of that statement is true.

9. God exists.

Note of course that you can make the same argument to prove that God doesn't exist, or anything else.
What, if anything, is wrong with this proof?

*Note: This is the part that I expect most people will comment on. It is one of the standard logical rules that if something, A, is true, you can say "If (~A) then..." and that will always be true. For instance, I could say "If George Washington is alive then the moon is made of cheese" and that would be considered true in natural logic.

See The Solution Submitted by Sam    
Rating: 3.6250 (8 votes)

Comments: ( Back to comment list | You must be logged in to post comments.)
re: | Comment 31 of 44 |
(In reply to by Benjamin J. Ladd)

dangit Benjamin....

You're missing the reason why those words were included as the predicate of the problem. The reason is exactly that many, if not most, readers will view the predicate as a truth. And those who don't, will undoubtedly acknowledge that many others do, and have the association of truth applied to the predicate.

And this notion, of the statement S being true or false when the predicate is true, ADDS to the problem itself.

This is NOT equivalent to saying that this problem is questioning (or stating) the truth of the predicate.

Yet, you have equated the two, and while Sam submitted a religiously/spiritually neutral problem, you have unnecessarily introduced your religion/spirituality into this.

I would just as soon ask Levik to delete this thread as they have NO relevance to this problem apart from your applying your religious/spiritual views to it and sharing them with us.
  Posted by SilverKnight on 2003-12-17 16:49:26

Please log in:
Login:
Password:
Remember me:
Sign up! | Forgot password


Search:
Search body:
Forums (0)
Newest Problems
Random Problem
FAQ | About This Site
Site Statistics
New Comments (3)
Unsolved Problems
Top Rated Problems
This month's top
Most Commented On

Chatterbox:
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 by Animus Pactum Consulting. All rights reserved. Privacy Information