Logical proof of God's existence

[peter22]

What are the traits of God? One primary trait is God's omnipotence.

How can we test God's omnipotence? Through miracles.

How can we define a miracle? Something that is ordinarily impossible, either phyisically or logically.

What is the most impossible act for God to perform, thus asserting his existence by proving his omnipotence?

The greatest miraculous feat for God to perform is for him not to exist thus proving his omnipotence.

[apologies for butchering the original]

 

[FishFace]

What are the traits of God? One primary trait is God's omnipotence.

How can we test God's omnipotence? Through miracles.

How can we define a miracle? Something that is ordinarily impossible, either phyisically or logically.

What is the most impossible act for God to perform, thus asserting his existence by proving his omnipotence?

The greatest miraculous feat for God to perform is for him not to exist thus proving his omnipotence.

[apologies for butchering the original]

Like the ontological argument for God's existence, this commits the existential fallacy by using existence as a first order predicate, I think.
Also the "greatest miraculous feat" is subjective. Why would God have to perform this feat? (I think the original may be better in this regard...)

 

[peter22]

Like the ontological argument for God's existence, this commits the existential fallacy by using existence as a first order predicate, I think.
Also the "greatest miraculous feat" is subjective. Why would God have to perform this feat? (I think the original may be better in this regard...)

With reference to 'greatest miraculous feat', I basically mean, "OK, if you're omnipotent, what's the most 'difficult' thing for you to do to prove it?" Not existing is the most miraculous thing because it is definitionally impossible, i.e., the greatest miracle.

 

[Solidlyhere]

The OP is not a logic major: "OK, if you're omnipotent, what's the most 'difficult' thing for you to do to prove it?" Not existing is the most miraculous thing because it is definitionally impossible."

1) A "person" is omnipotent;
2) For him to exist, he must be that "person";
3) Therefore, that is the proof of his existence.

If a person is NOT omnipotent, he must also exist.
So, ANY "person" must exist, or he ain't a person.

 

[CtrlY]

What are the traits of God? One primary trait is God's omnipotence.

How can we test God's omnipotence? Through miracles.

How can we define a miracle? Something that is ordinarily impossible, either phyisically or logically.

What is the most impossible act for God to perform, thus asserting his existence by proving his omnipotence?

The greatest miraculous feat for God to perform is for him not to exist thus proving his omnipotence.

[apologies for butchering the original]

I'm pretty sure God can't both exist and not exist at the same time. Somebody double-check me on that one.

 

[FishFace]

The OP is not a logic major: "OK, if you're omnipotent, what's the most 'difficult' thing for you to do to prove it?" Not existing is the most miraculous thing because it is definitionally impossible."

1) A "person" is omnipotent;
2) For him to exist, he must be that "person";
3) Therefore, that is the proof of his existence.

If a person is NOT omnipotent, he must also exist.
So, ANY "person" must exist, or he ain't a person.

The OP is a parody of the ontological argument:

1) God is the best possible thing ever
2) It's better to exist than not
3) God must exist.

It's actually dressed up in various forms that are a bit better than that, but that's the long and short of it. Unfortunately it comes down to the idea that:

1) God exists by definition
2) God exists

Which is plainly absurd. All we need to do is deny that this God concept is instantiated - i.e. that the best possible thing does not actually exist - and you're done. You have to do a bit more trickery with Gaunilo's original version (because he talks about God already existing in the mind - of course a concept of God is not actually God existing in the mind.)

 

[peter22]

Descartes thought of omnipotence as the ability to do absolutely anything. According to Descartes, God can do the logically impossible; he can make square circles, and he can make 2 + 2 = 5.

If Descartes’ conception of omnipotence is correct, then any attempt to disprove God’s existence using logic is hopeless. If God can do the logically impossible, then he can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. Yes, there’s a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.
Descartes’ understanding of omnipotence therefore doesn’t seem to be vulnerable to the paradox of the stone. Descartes can answer the question "Yes" without compromising divine omnipotence.

I took it a step further than the stone paradox. My argument obviously makes no sense because you cannot exist and not exist at the same time. However, if God is truly omnipotent and not just "really, really, really powerful" then he can not exist by virtue of said omnipotence.

[ref: http://www.existence-of-god.com ]