To newcomers - Sye, the author of this proof, is here defending it.
My latest response:
Hello again Sye
Well, we are getting somewhere, actually, as I now discover that by “proof” you seem to mean deductively valid argument.
Is that correct? If so - well, Golly, that's a very misleading way of using the term "proof".
"Proof" usually means, argument establishing the conclusion as true beyond all doubt, beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever. People will be very misled by your website's claim to "prove" God exists, if all you are really claiming is to have put "God exists" at the end of a deductively valid argument. We have all been very misled, in fact.
When I suggested that by “proof” we mean, proof beyond reasonable doubt, I thought I was doing you a favour by going with the weakest notion of “proof” I was aware of, but if by “proof” you actually just mean deductively valid argument, then, hey, I agree you have a “proof”!
But then, by your definition, this is a "proof" too:
1. The existence of the Cosmic Wombat is a necessary precondition of the existence of the laws of logic.
2. The laws of logic exist
Therefore, the Cosmic Wombat exists.
See? - deductively valid. So I have a "proof" too! If this wombat argument is not a proof, can you explain why?
My question is: by "proof" do you mean deductively valid argument? If not, what do you mean?
I will do a post on my views about logic next.