If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.

Mike,I think it's a good thread topic, but... why are you trying to force the use of logic on what is irrational? That should be premise #0: faith is irrational.In that case, premise "0" and your "4b" clearly do not warrant the conclusion that "you must believe in leprechauns if you believe in God." You're trying to force rationality in exactly what is governed by irrationality; that's your mistake, not the mistake of those who believe.Your argument doesn't even have to be about another mythological being. It can be about anything--if you beleive in God, you must believe that there's video cameras all around the world videotaping your experiences, and that everybody else, when out of sight, runs to the closest TV screen to watch your every move. Or that under the ground of the earth there's a really huge pit of rattlesnakes that drink the runoff rain water and use it to power their ability to glow. In other words, they must believe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is irrational.Belief in God, at its very core, is irrational. Period.Ben

Mike,I didn't reply to Lam's post because I thought it would lead the topic in a way you weren't intending. But... I guess you're cool with the direction.Lam is referring to St. Anselm's "Ontological Argument" (click here for a definition). Here's a more complete version of the argument: You can find a list of more 'proofs' of God's existence at that same webpage (page down to the 'examples' section).As for this proof... I don't remember what was said about it in my philosophy class when we studied it, but reading it now, it strikes me THUSLY:Anselm hasn't shown that God exists at all. He's talking about what men, and specifically men who believe in God, must believe. I think his proof shows that, IF a man believes in God, AND he believes that that God is 'the Being than which none greater can be thought', THEN, in that man's conception of God, God must be thought to exist.Of course, this proof says nothing about those who DON'T believe in God, about those who believe in Gods that are NOT 'the Being(s) than which none greater can be thought', and, probably most crucially, ANYTHING that actually exists in the world.If only it were that easy... that my thinking about something brings it into existence. Well... interestingly enough, Anselm's mistake is actually in a direction that psychology is tending to take (that 'reality' is, in some meaningful sense, defined by the mind)... but that's a different story for a different time.Well, anyway, I hope that adds some value for you.Ben

Lam,Thanks for the response. I know this argument (I just posted a reply with some more details). I think they're interestering academically, and kind of like brain teasers--can you find the unstated assumption that produces the mind-bending conclusion?I think you bring up a good thought (that, let's say, proof of God is provable), and to think about how that affects us all. Faith and belief are, really, irrational. Some people do their best to align their belief with logic, but it's just impossible. We live in an ill-defined world--one where all 'knowledge' is inductive, not deductive (note to self: using the word 'all' here is dangerous! Try not to do that!).Because of this, I really think that belief and faith are only partially related to truth, fact, or proofs. And this is hardly a bold statement. I think most Evos here have been complaining about this property of some people who discuss here!So I'd say... for some people, proof of God would change belief. And for some, it simply wouldn't. Those people wouldn't work with logic in their metaphysical beliefs.Did I make any sense? Well, ... the JLPT is two days away, and I started studying (two days ago)! So... I better GO DO THAT. You're stuck with this post as is Ben

Sorry for butting in... but I really wanted to add something. My apologies in advance if I'm not adding value, or if I take your discussion in another direction... I've studied epistemology a fair bit, and I disagree with this view. It's true that this world might be illusory. However, as long as this world is consistent and rule-based, it doesn't really matter. If it's illusory, your measurement is a FACT of the illusory building; if it's 'real' then it's a FACT of some 'true' building. Either way, it's some kind of knowledge; whether the building 'actually' exists or not really doesn't matter at all. I think this way of speaking is using rhetoric (whether intentionally or not) to avoid and confuse. The problem doesn't exist.Our (i.e. each person, individually) perception and understanding of the world is simply our modelling of 'something.' Whether that something is 'an illusion' or 'reality' is something that is probably unknowable, but is really quite meaningless. 'Truth' in this meaning doesn't add any value.Ben

[begin butt in]Isn't this just pushing cause into some other place? So the cause isn't in OUR universe, it's in the multi-verse... you're still talking all about causality. In other words, you haven't shown that anything exists without a cause, you've just argued that the cause of our universe may lie somewhere else.So I don't think your point is a valid one, unless you can argue something about the multiverse being a place where 'causeless' things happen. And as it stands, you state that you think that the multiverse is a causal place.I think quantum mechanics is the best place to argue for causeless events, but ... well, I'll leave it at that. [end butt in]