Proof that God exists?

[Wiccan_Child]

it's sort of a contradiction for a god to pops down or up? to be seen, verified , measured and tested.

such an event/action will instantly objectify that god, and the word god by any stretch of imagination cannot be an object.

That depends on what we mean by 'God'. If we define 'God' as the first cause (if it indeed exists), then I see no reason why 'God' could not demonstrate its existance. After all, this 'first cause' may just so happen to have other properties (e.g., those traditionally attributed to the deity of Judaeo-Christo-Islamic monotheism).

On the other hand, if we take a more traditional approach to defining deities, then there still is no reason why deities couldn't manifest themselves. Indeed, mythology is full of such manifestations, from Zeus wooing mortal women in the guise of farmyard animals, to YWHW impregnating a mortal woman with himself, to the world itself being one half of Marduk's bifurcated body.

at any rate, i know no one who has logically proven that "what is" is "what ought" to be.
ie truth and logic must have cause or existence for that matter must have a cause

No. Logic is self-evident, and truth is a property of statements. Matter (and energy) may or may not have an ultimate cause, but that line of inquiry is, I believe, independant of the nature of logic.

if we have to postulate that god is a cause of everything, then by the same logic god must also have a cause.
and the cause of god must also have a cause ad infinitum.

Not necessarily. At the beginning of your argument, you define 'God' to be the cause of everything. This requires that either 'God' is uncaused, or 'God' is self-causing. Neither of these are satisfactory, but such is the semanticle hole you've dug.

 

[hybrid]

That depends on what we mean by 'God'. If we define 'God' as the first cause (if it indeed exists), then I see no reason why 'God' could not demonstrate its existance. After all, this 'first cause' may just so happen to have other properties (e.g., those traditionally attributed to the deity of Judaeo-Christo-Islamic monotheism).

if god is first cause, then everything else can be considered as its property and a demonstartion of its existence.
you might just as well advocate that you are the evidence of god existence. and we are back to the same fallacy. the leap of faith that existence must have a cause.
a bright dazzling light show is not necessarily a manifestation of god's existence. it is a simple perception interpreted and gave meaning according to one's beliefs.

now prove to me logically that what is (existence) is that ought to be. (must have a cause)
IOW, draw a connection to satisfy logically and reasonably between descriptive truth and prescriptive truth.

No. Logic is self-evident, and truth is a property of statements. Matter (and energy) may or may not have an ultimate cause, but that line of inquiry is, I believe, independent of the nature of logic.

if you can refute godel's incompleteness theorem. then i'll believed you.

if you can't , that would give an element of uncertainty to everything. at best there is a 50 % peobabilty that god exists, now if you affirmed with certainty that He does, it is only because you chose to believe. it is an act of faith.

Not necessarily. At the beginning of your argument, you define 'God' to be the cause of everything. This requires that either 'God' is uncaused, or 'God' is self-causing. Neither of these are satisfactory, but such is the semanticle hole you've dug.

ah but at the same token, existence can be self causing and uncaused without a god postulate in the first place, you see?
brother occam would have agreed.

i van be cavalier to accept that existence and god can be loosely be interchangeable in meaning.
my only problem is i find the word god , full of contrived nonsense.
its postulate is already an overlay and a distraction for an honest inquiry.

 

[Tiberius]

How does it show this??? That would be like saying that because you do not know the answer to a math problem, there is no answer.

A math problem can be figured out. There is no grey area. There is either an answer or there is not. This cannot be done with moral questions. There are people who think it is moral to smack a disobedient child, and people who think it is not moral to smack them. Which position do you take? Can you prove conclusively that people who disagree are wrong? mathematics is testable, is morality testable?

In order to get to that step, you must agree that the laws of morality are absolute. If you can show me an absolute law that is not universal, you may have a point. The floor is yours.

The reason I said that all laws are absolute on that website is because that is the only way to continue. I do not think that the laws of morality are absolute. I only said that because to do otherwise would have been the end of quiz, and I wouldn't have been able to comment on it.

How do you account for ANY universal law according to your worldview?

What exactly do you mean when you say I have to account for a universal law. Do I have to account for quantum mechanics? Why? And what process do I go through to account for it? What exactly are you after?

What does that have to do with whether or not absolute moral laws exist?

Do we all have our own interpretation of mathematics? maybe, but there's only one that actually works. I can say that 1+1=Tuesday, but that won't give me any meaningful information. And yet, morality works in a different way. People can have very different views of morality that work for them.

Well, like I say on the site, if you are honest, you will reach the proof. You admit that you were not.

Only in order to get to the end. If I play honestly, I disagree with nearly everything the site says, and I do not get anywhere with them. The path offered by the quiz is severely limiting.

Sure, it is supported by the impossibility of the contrary. Should be easy to refute, just posit a way to prove anyting without God.

Um excuse me? Burden of proof. You make the claim, show me where God is required to prove that a hammer will fall if I drop it.

You did. It is on the main page in the Q&A.

Seems to me they should have included it in the quiz as well. Kind of an important step, doncha think?

Actually, it is not at all a causality argument. The argument is that one could not make sense, even of the cosmological argument, if God did not exists, as God is the precondition to intelligibility. Again, should be easy for you to refute, just justify intelligibility according to your worldview.

They're saying that these laws need God to exist. That's pretty close to a first cause to me.

It's really quite simple, I ask if it is absolutely true that you do not know if absolute truth exists. Denial of absolute truth, is self-refuting.

Only if you deal in absolutes. Absolute truth does exist or Absolute Truth does not exist.

What about possibility? Maybe absolute truth exists, but we don't know? The quiz does not give us options for all possibilities. There are many choices which are not presented. This is done just to force us to a conclusion which is not true.

So, I ask you, what if we think that aboslute truth may not exist, but we don't know? That's not an absolute, so we can say no without being caught out.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

if god is first cause, then everything else can be considered as its property and a demonstartion of its existence.

I disagree. When a glass-blower makes a glass bottle, what property of the former goes into the latter?

you might just as well advocate that you are the evidence of god existence. and we are back to the same fallacy. the leap of faith that existence must have a cause.

I am not the one making the argument. Indeed, I am arguing against it.

now prove to me logically that what is (existence) is that ought to be. (must have a cause)
IOW, draw a connection to satisfy logically and reasonably between descriptive truth and prescriptive truth.

I shan't, because that's not my claim.

if you can refute godel's incompleteness theorem. then i'll believed you.

If I could do that, I'd be made for life .

if you can't , that would give an element of uncertainty to everything. at best there is a 50 % peobabilty that god exists, now if you affirmed with certainty that He does, it is only because you chose to believe. it is an act of faith.

And since I don't believe, your argument is moot.

ah but at the same token, existence can be self causing and uncaused without a god postulate in the first place, you see?

Yes. However, I do not believe the universe is uncaused. Self-causing? Perhaps. But I certainly don't ascribe deities anywhere in the mix.

i van be cavalier to accept that existence and god can be loosely be interchangeable in meaning.
my only problem is i find the word god , full of contrived nonsense.
its postulate is already an overlay and a distraction for an honest inquiry.

Which is one of my criticisms of the cosmological argument: it arbitrarily equates the 'first cause' of the universe (if one even exists) with the arguer's personal deity.

 

[hybrid]

I disagree. When a glass-blower makes a glass bottle, what property of the former goes into the latter?

in emergent system, it is possible to take on an entirely new property from hence it emerges. nonetheless the latter is the cause of the former.

the wind can be consider as the cause to transform the shape of a lump of glass into a bottle.

but basically the heirachy is similar to first cause - energy - forcess- particles - atoms - molecules - so on so forth, oh, you'll get the point

 

[brinny]

Did Jesus live?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

in emergent system, it is possible to take on an entirely new property from hence it emerges. nonetheless the latter is the cause of the former.

Nevertheless, the caused does not necessarily take on the properties of the causer, as you previously claimed.

the wind can be consider as the cause to transform the shape of a lump of glass into a bottle.

Yet the wind is not an intelligent deity, and not does the bottle take on the properties of pressurised gas (which is, at the end of the day, what wind is). Rather, glass is semi-liquid silica composite (or some such; glass bores me).

but basically the heirachy is similar to first cause - energy - forcess- particles - atoms - molecules - so on so forth, oh, you'll get the point

Not really. The First Cause is a hypothetical progentior of the web of causality that supposedly exists/existed some time in the past. Energy (of which forces and particles emerge) is not the thing that was 'caused' insofar as it is a thing at all. The First Cause was the start of the web of causality, not the formation of some thing or other.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did Jesus live?

Doubtful, but that hasn't stopped people believing.

 

[The Nihilist]

Hey, where'd that guy with the website go? It was just starting to get interesting.

 

[Skavau]

This website is an awful attempt at showing that God exists.

Let us strip down the websites 8 steps to delusion:

The website first asks the following:

What do you believe?

• There is Absolute Truth
• There is no Absolute Truth
• I don't know if there is Absolute Truth
• I don't care if there is Absolute Truth

And the website's own definition for absolute truth (listed below) is "(Absolute Truth - True for all people at all times, universally true.)". Now, considering the state of affairs of my current knowledge - I would have to go with that conclusion I do not know if there is absolute truth. We do not know all state of affairs in the universe and we are in no position to declare that there is an all-encompassing truth at all times, for all people. This is still even a vague statement. What is an absolute truth? Something that we are forced to obey through natural law, or by 'absolute truth' is it referring to moral standards?

Anyway, I will conclude 'I don't know.'

I then get taken to this page which has another question:
I Don't Know If Absolute Truth Exists

• Absolutely True
• False

Now, presumably the website host thinks he or she is on to unearthing a contradiction in the answer. The host assumes that if I answer 'Absolutely True', I invoke a universal truth and if 'False', I in fact negated my own assertion.

In actuality, this is nonsense. What the question actually ends up doing is asking me to restate my opinion. I don't know if absolute truth exists and therefore I will answer 'Absolutely True' because that is what I believe. I invoke no absolute truth by merely re-affirming my original standpoint. I invoke only my opinion. I go ahead and answer true.

I appear to be taken back to the main page! The author is unable to actually deal with someone who affirms their standpoint. The fact the author is totally unable in the slightest to successfully challenge any dispute with his own principles is not a very good or convincing start. From the ground off I am in total disagreement with the author's standpoint and there is no reconciliation.

So, for this 'proof' thing I have to presume an absolute truth. to actually get going anywhere. All 3 answers either lead to a circle or an exit. So let us assume for the sake of the argument that Absolute truth does indeed exist.

I am greeted as a guest in sinner ministries. I am given the opportunity to see how, in just 8 steps that there is proof of God and specifically, the Christian Conception of God. I 'eagerly' click on step 1.

Step One: Laws of Logic - What do you believe?

• Laws of Logic Exist
• Laws of Logic do not exist

This is a fairly obvious question and demands a fairly obvious answer. If logic does not exist, then premise, argument and conclusion all become arbitrary and totally meaningless. I do accept the existence of logic and provided adequately in the example and therefore I click 'Laws of Logic Exist'. (Asserting contrary leads to a circle, but I will at least concede that someone who denies logical argument much less the existence of logic shouldn't be in philosophy).
Step Two: Laws of Mathematics - What do you believe?

• Laws of Mathematics Exist
• Laws of Mathematics do not exist

This again is fairly obvious. The importance of mathematics in scientific understanding and in society are without need of justification. We do use mathematics all of the time and we rely upon it constantly to make basic decisions. Laws of Mathematics Exist even just as a human measurement. (Asserting contrary leads to yet another circle, but this time the author condemns you rather than questions you. You are left with either concession or a lovely exit sign. To cut it short, you must accept all premises to get anywhere on this proof).

I'm still wondering what relevance mathematics has directly or indirectly to God. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Step Three: Laws of Science

• Laws of Science Exist
• Laws of Science do not exist

Science gives us understanding of natural phenomena. It has an excellent track record of success and the Laws of Science do exist. (To dispute this leads to another condemnation).

Step Four: Absolute Moral Laws

• Absolute Moral Laws Exist
• Absolute Moral Laws do not exist

Now the real fun begins. I am an Atheist. Whilst perhaps an accepted universal standard of morality would in fact make politics, social issues, ethical issues and the general day-to-day governing of the earth infinitely easier - there is no basis for presuming these moral laws in the first place. How does one (and this popped up on the opening question of this thing with the 'Absolute Reality') define 'Absolute Morality'? Is absolute morality the state of unilateral agreement on what everyone ought or is it the state of what ought be imposed by force by nature itself? When I think of absolutes, I inherently think of scientific law. I inherently think of what we are bound by and what we are limited to.

Objective morality to me, if it even exists is the affair which comes as human co-operation exists. It is an entirely human affair which only concerns itself with humans. We use moral guidelines, codes of conduct to manage, maintain and develop communities of people to live successfully together. Is this objective? I would say not and I would most assuredly say not so if it was by the original author's standpoint of what is objectively. Therefore I shall have to answer negatively. Absolute moral laws do not exist.

Seriously... what do you believe?

• Molesting children for fun is absolutely morally wrong
• Molesting children for fun could be right

The author has rather sneakily imposed a Catch-22. This is an appeal to the user's emotion. Some may concede that a universal assertion by them on a moral 'dilemma' equals universal morality. The problem simply is that it does not. My actual standpoint on this is that the molestation of a child for the means of entertainment is morally reprehensible. I base this on many factors, but my factors obviously do not account for all factors. This is still subjective, or at least not in the slightest way universal.

But as stated, this does not mean that I think it is right at all. The problem here is that this is not even a moral dilemma. Someone who molests children for fun is not considering morality. Ethical decisions under humanity by definition exercises constraint because they are concerned with deciding upon a set way of asserting right or wrong. It is then practiced through community. A community can be anything from two consenting adults negotiation a sexual encounter, to the rules of a family, to the rules of a single town council, to the rules of government. What is the molester considering here? This is not a moral dilemma. I shall click what my opinion stands at, which is that molestation of children is always wrong.

I get re-directed to the previous page. The author does not distinguish between an affirmed moral stance and an assertion of universal standards. Let me click the other option, for experimentation (Molesting children could be right). I get taken to a new page explaining how moral laws have value but not at all explaining how universal moral standards actually exist. The author has an is-ought problem. The author obviously would love it so much is absolute standards exist, and obviously thinks they do. But what you want to exist does not necessarily exist. The author has not actually destroyed the possibility of an world sans the existence of moral standards. Someone can completely eradicate the '8 steps to God' just by disagreeing that moral standards exist. They would then get greeted with this laughable piece of text:

Unless you reconsider your stand on this matter, your road to this site's proof that God exists ends here. It is my prayer that you come to understand how inconsistent and irrational this line of thinking is and return to seek the truth.

This is a hilarious case of special pleading. The author has given the user no reason to reconsider anything. The author is supposed to be making a case for proving the existence of God and whenever there is dissent, the author bails out. In order for any of these 'proofs' to make the remotest piece of sense, you must agree with all premises (which as has been established, are not inherently agreeable).

But let us continue. I will assume for the sake of progression, that Absolute Moral Laws do exist.
Step Five: The Nature of Laws

• Laws of logic, maths and morality are immaterial
• Laws of logic, maths and morality are material.

This is a nonsensical question. Scientific Laws are based on observation of things that exist and definitely qualify as matter. Morality itself has absolutely no material whatsoever and is concerned only on direction for the right course of action.

I cannot actually choose one or the other. There ought to be a third option. I will choose the second option though. Let us assume all of the above are material.

Clicking the second option is obviously something the author disagrees with. Allegedly, the author was referring to all concepts within mathematics, science and morality and clearly ignores (especially science) what they are based on. (Here's a clue: Science is based on observation of the material).

So, I have to return back. I am told that by faith he hopes I return to the truth. So let us continue. I shall click on the first option: all three are immaterial.
Step Six: The Nature of Laws (b)

• Laws of logic, mathematics and science are universal.
• Laws of logic, mathematics and science are individual.

This is a rather pointless step. Did we not already conclude that maths, logic, science and morality were universal (absolute) in Steps 1, 2, 3 and 4? We wouldn't be at this mighty stage if we had not. The author obviously doesn't think so. Hence the repetition.

I shall go for what will advance this dreary process. The laws of logic, science etc are universal.

Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)

• Laws of logic, mathematics and science are unchanging
• Laws of logic, mathematics and science are changing.

To declare that the laws of logic, maths and science are changing would contradict the answer given in 7. At least the author has set it up so you don't need to spend time look at the alternates on the latter stages of this step system. I will go for the unchanging answer.

I reach a special stage and ironically, it has destroyed its own validity in its opening paragraph. I shall quote it:

To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist.

That's the funny thing. The author offers no good reason for anyone to assume any of the above. One has to take the authors premises on truth value for the proof to mean anything. This is a flawed argument. It is the equivalent of a scientist saying his theory is true if you accept A, B, C, D and E.

Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible.

This is nonsense. You have to demonstrate this at all. All that is required for rational thinking is coherency in nature and coherency in thought. We see that.

Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

I would accept your premise if I was to claim the universe was random. You offer no reason for me to accept that unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe is only material in nature though.

Elaborate.

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence.

Wait. Where did the Bible come from? This argument is jumping from side to side. Your '8 steps' only demonstrate an acceptance of a universal truth - not of God. Moreover, the Bible's assertion of two types of people in this world is evidently wrong. I do not believe in God. I am in neither category.

The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

The Bible, or the authors evidentially have very low standards for what constitutes 'proof'.

Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.​

I don't care what Romans says.

Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore...

Demonstrate how God is required for universal, immaterial and unchanging laws to exist.

And on that note, Step 8 opens for as the proof:

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

What. A. Letdown.

An incredible anti-climax, and yet an utterly hilarious, intellectually circular, paradoxical and utterly inane strain of reasoning that barely follows any reasoning employed in the follow up. The author simply asserted that God must exist to explain invariable universal laws and offered absolutely no reason why.

Moreover, what happens if I was to say reject (as I said) absolute moral truths in this authors argument? If I believed in a universe that was universal in so much that it obeyed natural law and mathematics and logic had validity - but no moral truth exists. What happens to the authors path of reasoning then? You actually have to demonstrate how absolute moral values exist before assuming them as a premise.
​

 

[Skavau]

Should be easy to refute, then, if it is so laughable. Could you please tell us how it is possible to prove ANYTHING without God.

It is not possible to prove anything per se. We only have reason and evidence to make claims with.

Moreover, what precisely do you think your conclusion demonstrates? Your conclusion if accepted might lead one to presume a supernatural universal order or authority - but by what basis is this Christian Theism over Scientific Pantheism?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

it's sort of a contradiction for a god to pops down or up? to be seen, verified , measured and tested.

such an event/action will instantly objectify that god, and the word god by any stretch of imagination cannot be an object.

at any rate, i know no one who has logically proven that "what is" is "what ought" to be.
ie truth and logic must have cause or existence for that matter must have a cause



if we have to postulate that god is a cause of everything, then by the same logic god must also have a cause.
and the cause of god must also have a cause ad infinitum.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful [as the Babel fish] could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.
The argument goes like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn’t thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

classic guide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA
a more modern version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyYS-GzBSIg

 

[stevendrake]

How does one prove that God exists?

Irreducible complexity

 

[stevendrake]

haha, That will happen. By that time it will be to late though. I am slightly amused by that statement in an underlying saddened sort of way.

 

[StarCannon]

All I know is that the OP's-link-to-proof was rather cute when clicking the wrong answers led merely to a dead end. It reeked of such shallowness that I promptly closed the link and decided that such a thing is really a giant waste of internet space.
Of course, when christians try to sway non believers into believing, the result is rather... ew.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Irreducible complexity

Demonstrating that a particular biological system is irreducibly complex merely proves that it couldn't have evolved. At best, you could put it down to external intervention, be it human, divine, or even extra-terrestrial. You could define 'God' to be this entity, but that would be a mere play on words.

Besides, no such demonstration has occured.

 

[stevendrake]

Doubtful, but that hasn't stopped people believing.

Doubtful? Debating who he was would prove to be much more interesting an argument than "if" he was. There are to many historical accounts to honestly question his existence. True, it pretty much is biblical but the bible is not written by one individual. Furthermore, people put there lives at risk and ended up dieing over their belief in Jesus. First hand witnesses. Spin it how you like but that is pretty compelling that they were willing to die over it.

 

[stevendrake]

Motion. If you understand motion you know that it doesn't move... without a mover. Trace this back and if there is no God, what moved first? Imagination?

 

[stevendrake]

Human=Complexity
Divine=God
Extra Terrestrial=Complexity

You have to either explain away God and complexity issues or accept CREATOR. Or post (pardon me) nonsense again.

 

[Corey]

I am not arguing about the 'usefulness' of logic, I am arguing about whose worldview can provide a foundation for it.

You have to FIRST assume that the laws of logic exist, in order to determine whether or not anything is 'nonsensical.' How do you account for the laws of logic?

You clearly don't understand what empiricism is.

Here's how it goes. Empiricism means we use what works. Logic seems to work. Specifically we use some inductive logic to make inferences.

Inference 1: reality exists
Inference 2: Reality's existence is independent of my own (i.e., when I die reality will not end).
Inference 3: there is definable and knowable order and structure to reality.

We can construct tests for each of those three inferences.

Because the "laws of logic" currently in use have not failed any tests of the veracity, then we assume they are true. Because of the three inferences above we assume they are universally true.