(Nov 17, 2017 03:33 AM)Yazata Wrote:(Nov 16, 2017 10:41 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:(Nov 15, 2017 09:33 PM)Yazata Wrote: What formal proofs demonstrate are some of the logical implications of an initial set of premises.
The conclusion of a formal proof needn't be true, unless the original premises were.
Thank you for that insightful and eye opening response.
Anything to help, Ostro.
Here's an example:
1. (Premise) If Emmanuel Macron is President of France, then Madrid is the capital of France.
2. (Premise) Emmanuel Macron is President of France
Therefore
3. (Conclusion) Madrid is the capital of France
The proof is entirely valid (an example of modus ponens) but the conclusion is obviously false.
That's because premise #1 is false (even if #2 is true).
The moral of the story is that just because somebody produces what they insist is a logical or mathematical "proof" of something, doesn't necessarily make the conclusion true. The proof might be invalid (it might contain a logical error somewhere) or the initial premises of the argument might not all be true.
This by no means implies that God is among those hypothetical or fictional entities. Rather, your moral can be taken as true at face value. You see, God possesses reality based properties that correspond to reality. Such as invisibility and universality.