Chapter 91 <God exists>

A French philosopher in the seventeenth century argued for the existence of God in this way: God exists.Because God is perfect and all-encompassing, it must also contain the nature of existence; if it is said that the perfect and all-encompassing God lacks the nature of being, that is, God does not exist, then God is not perfect, which is natural. contradictory.So, God exists. The philosopher advanced the thesis that God exists, and justified it by citing the argument that God is perfect and all-encompassing, and therefore includes the nature of existence. The problem is that this argument itself presupposes the existence of God, because how can a thing that does not exist at all have perfect and all-encompassing properties?That is to say, the necessary condition for the establishment of the argument that God is perfect and all-encompassing is that God exists.Prove the thesis with the argument first, and then prove the argument with the thesis, which is logically called a circular argument, which violates the argument rule that the authenticity of the argument cannot be proved by the thesis.

The essence of circular argument is tautology, that is, the same idea is restated in different forms without any argument.Looking at the above argument, its essence is equivalent to saying: God exists because God exists.In addition, the argument errs on the grounds of expectation.Because the argument that God is perfect and all-encompassing has not been proven, nor can it be proven. Intentionally creating circular arguments is a kind of sophistry.Please see the following example: (1) During the Cultural Revolution, when Lin Biao and the Gang of Four labeled leading cadres as capitalist roaders, their usual method of argument was:

A certain cadre is a capitalist roader because he supports the bad guys and shields ghosts, monsters, and black gangs. Why are these people bad guys, ghosts and monsters, and black people?They also argued: Because these people are sheltered and reused by the capitalist roaders. (2) In the article "The Soul of Debate", when Lu Xun exposed the sophistry of the reactionaries to slander others as traitors, he pointed out that their method of argument is: You are a traitor.I call a traitor, so I am a patriot.The words of patriots are valuable, so mine are good. Since my words are good, you are undoubtedly a traitor!

The above two examples are all sophistry that deliberately played with circular reasoning.Taking the latter example as an example, it is good to use you as a traitor to prove what I said (a false premise is omitted in this step of the argument that anyone who scolds a traitor is a patriot, and at the same time made the mistake of subverting the concept , exchange valuable steals for good ones), and then use my words that are good to prove that you are a traitor.