• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

No, I'm defining God as a necessary being, as opposed to a contingent being: if God exists, God is a necessary being. The question of existence is separate from the question of mode of existence.

Been down this road it could be EDAS remember? thus the claim that Giod is necessary is an unproven and unprovable claim
Your logic is flawed I suggest you take some courses on it
 
Quickly, with a show of hands, how many here have seen the TV ad for "miracle spring water?" Get a free sample and you will enjoy a miracle. With testimonies from those "real" people who did so and got unexpected checks in the mail for $1k's or some such nonsense. You know it is some king of scam, yet there are those out there who will step into it, and whoever is behind it will con some big bucks.

It's similar to Carny side show with the hands on healing with fervent shouts of Hallelujah. From the rear of the tent a man rises with a twisted arm shouting "Please God, Heal Me! Please make my arm like my other one!" over and over as he stumbles down the aisle to the stage. Suddenly there's a crack of extremely loud thunder and to the shock and awe of the audience, both of the man's arms are now twisted.

And there is the crux of the problem, the inevitable hucksterism that comes with religion. The personification of deities to satisfy the egos of men, because the gods resemble men and the behaviors of men. Worse, all too often religion has become the excuse for behavioral controls. Impugning the "natural" freedoms of mankind. Use for political purposes of just campfire tales as night descended on the scary world outside the caves where men found shelter. More evil has been conducted in this world than good by religions and those who use religion for their own agendas. We all know that. Right?

However, throughout history, known and unknown, religions have provided social structures, regardless of how we today look back at the effects of those social structures, and their success or lack thereof. And religions have provided believers with solace for the pains of the living, and joys for the celebration of belief. There cannot be denial of these attributes, even if one disapproves of the results, the misuse, and adheres to basic belief of atheism, "we are born, crap happens, and we die." Game over. Nothing else. Life is just an accident of colliding molecules.

It is very easy to come up with arguments rejecting religions, and in turn, the existence of a being, omniscient and omnipotent, a somewhat personification of all humanity and the universe as we know it. On the other hand, the internal search for meaning of life demands some sort of beginning point. And that is where godhood rests, in explaining, no matter how unacceptable we find that explanation, the reasons for life and existence. Ultimately a choice between accident and purpose. Not to be justified by any logic mankind devises, but a question of belief. Can't be proved or disproved. And as separated from the inherent confusion of religion created by man, more difficult to accept, perhaps. Perhaps, a wonderful word. Perhaps we need to step back and accept some questions cannot be answered within the confines of the human condition? And therefore knowing god an impossibility within the human condition.

I choose to believe a god exists who created life. I choose to believe there is a meaning for life. No one can prove me wrong. And that is the only logic for the existence of god. No one can reject my belief other than me. It is no one else's possession to reject.
Bolded is true but not really relevant to the OP which is about trying and failing to prove God exist
 
No, I'm defining God as a necessary being, as opposed to a contingent being: if God exists, God is a necessary being. The question of existence is separate from the question of mode of existence.

Then premise 6 is an unsupported assertion. If something must exist, then it can exist. But there is nothing in your argument that necessitates that anything must exist. You simply define God as a being that must exist, then you conclude that God exists. This is circular.

1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)
<== (This is a conditional. If God does not exist, then what?)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
<== (Why? There is no logical reason to conclude this. It is possible that God does not exist, in which case this premise is false and it could very well be the case that God must not exist.)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6) <== (You're conclusion is a restatement of the previous premise. This is begging the question.)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
<== (Also unsupported. Converse is not a logical property (1) and your definition (4) does not require God to exist. Whatever exists can exist, but whatever can exist does not by definition require existence. If something is A, then it can also be B. If something is B, it is not therefore required to also be A. It could be, or it could just be B.)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10) <== (Invalid conclusion. It does not follow from the premises.)


"Whatever can exist, must exist" is not supported by anything this argument, and is required for your conclusion to be valid.
 
Last edited:
Because every single one of them including you word salad is logical gibberish

A tactic to try and scare people away from questioning, and to confuse. But if a person really knows their stuff, they have to be able to convey it in plain English, step by step.
Or at least honestly try.
 
This is going to be harsh, and I apologize in advance.

This is not a modal argument, but rather an ontological argument (philosophical argument logic tree) to prove the existence of God by playing on what words mean....
I am delighted that you joined the conversation, and shall address your considered post directly. I simply wished to post a quick acknowledgment first.
 
Bolded is true but not really relevant to the OP which is about trying and failing to prove God exist

In your opinion, and obviously I differ. The proof is in the pudding, preferably butterscotch.
 
No, you claim they are distinct, with no evidence or reasoning behind the claim.

Your "proof" was already shown to be in error, as I stated, you claim God exists in #6, which you then claim you were "proving". It's begging the quesiton.
I hope the links provided in this post may prepare the way for our resolving our differences. An individual reply will follow.
Then premise 6 is an unsupported assertion. If something must exist, then it can exist. But there is nothing in your argument that necessitates that anything must exist. You simply define God as a being that must exist, then you conclude that God exists. This is circular.
...
"Whatever can exist, must exist" is not supported by anything this argument, and is required for your conclusion to be valid.
Yours is a good-faith post in the spirit of philosophical discourse, and I shall reply to your points in an individual post to follow.

You did do the defining, it is literally specified in line 4 of your proof. You're free to assert that other people have defined God in this manner before you but that isn't relevant to your proof.
...
Fair enough, you can present your proof as being for this "logical necessity" (it doesn't matter what you name it). The actual logic of the proof you've offered, essentially saying because it is necessary it must exist, remains fundamentally flawed.
I shall reply to these two points in an upcoming post.



Necessary Being

This business of necessary being is clearly a sticking point in the discussion of the OP proof. I've tried to explain the concept in my own words, but to no avail. Inasmuch as the concept of a necessary being is central to the proof, I post the following links for the purpose of clarification of the concept.

God and Other Necessary Beings
It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.
God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Does a necessary being (or thing) exist?
Modal logic is a standardized logic. It is taught in every major university and is used in many disciplines, especially computer science. It is a theorem in standard S5 modal logic that if something is possibly necessary, then it is actually necessary. So if a necessary entity is something that could even possibly exist, in this logical-metaphysical sense, then per this theorem, it actually does exist: in fact it has to exist.

Necessary truths vs. contingent truths
[Open link to read under this heading]

Epistemic possibility vs. Metaphysical possibility
[Open link to read under this heading]
Putting it together
How does this help us see that possibly necessary entails actually necessary? Well, recall again that if Golbach's conjecture is true then it has to be true, because it is the kind of proposition that is necessarily true or necessarily false. In the same way, “God exists” is the kind of proposition that is necessarily true or necessarily false. Why? Because God is defined as a necessary being. That means that if theism is true, then “Necessarily, God exists”. By contrast, if theism is false, then “Necessarily, God does not exist”. So, “Theism is true” is very much like “Golbach's conjecture is true”. We may not know whether it is true or false, but like 1+1=x, whatever the answer is, it metaphysically could not be otherwise. So if it is metaphysically possible that God does not exist, then necessarily God does exist. And if it is metaphysically possible that God exists, then metaphysically necessarily God exists.
Does a necessary being (or thing) exist?
 
I am delighted that you joined the conversation, and shall address your considered post directly. I simply wished to post a quick acknowledgment first.

No worries, looking forward to the discussions.
 
Proof of God


1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)


To refute your argument.

4. If God exists, God must exist - incorrect, it is possible that God exists but is powerless to create matter or life which happened through natural processes. "God" may be little more than an intelligence with little or no power

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist - Are you saying we cannot have God AND the big bang ? In which case one MUST be absent.

6. It is not the case God must not exist - If we believe that everything came about naturally and your definition of God includes the power/motivation to create the universe - God cannot exist alongside natural processes.


QED: If we have the big bang, which all evidence suggest we do have it, we cannot have God.
 
In your opinion, and obviously I differ. The proof is in the pudding, preferably butterscotch.

The OP has no pudding just a mud pie
There is no proof there is only beleif and there is nothing wromg with that.
 
Proof of God

iFT1wGb.jpg



1. Whatever exists, can exist. (axiom: actuality implies possibility)
2. Whatever must exist, exists. (axiom: necessity implies actuality)
3. Whatever must exist, can exist. (axiom: necessity implies possibility)

4. If God exists, God must exist. (definition)

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)
7. Therefore, God must exist. (from 5 and 6)

8. If God must exist, then God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
9. If God can exist, then God exists. (from converse of definition and 1)
10. God can exist. (from 3 and 7)
11. Therefore God exists. (from 9 and 10)


This is a modal argument in simple direct English answering the skeptical challenge to provide a proof of God's existence.
The author of the proof welcomes comment and good-faith engagement.​

Ok here's a few quotes

Matthew 19:26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Luke 1:37 "For nothing will be impossible with God."

Mark 9:23 And Jesus said to him, " 'If You can?' All things are possible to him who believes."

Mark 11:24 "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you."

So given that the Bible, and many other religions say if you believe ANYTHING is possible. So given the number of people of faith, who have prayed to "GOD" we should have any child with cancer right? There should be people who have re-grown limbs, because they prayed.

Really the FACT that doesn't happen means no god.
 
Ok here's a few quotes

Matthew 19:26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Luke 1:37 "For nothing will be impossible with God."

Mark 9:23 And Jesus said to him, " 'If You can?' All things are possible to him who believes."

Mark 11:24 "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you."

So given that the Bible, and many other religions say if you believe ANYTHING is possible. So given the number of people of faith, who have prayed to "GOD" we should have any child with cancer right? There should be people who have re-grown limbs, because they prayed.

Really the FACT that doesn't happen means no god.


Could it be that the first two Christians realized how powerful this was and prayed for God NOT to answer ANY prayer positively ?

Could it be that two Christians prayed for X to happen while another two prayed for X NOT to happen ?
 
The "leap" is supposed to be moderated by the steps cumulatively. You are correct in stating "that it cannot be argued that he must not exist does not mean that he does," I don't think that's what the argument as a whole argues.

Premise #5 may have problems because of my attempt to capture modal statements in plain English. What I meant to capture was "Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist." I may need to tweak that line. Others have had problems with it also.

You still have the same problem in step 5 of not being related. It may seem as common sense that it can be only one or the other but they are instead separate claims that must be dealt with on their own. An example.

Either you have faith god exists or you have good reasons for his existence. You have chosen to give us what you would call a good reason and therefore using your thinking that must mean that you have no faith that god exists.

Neither faith or reason are related but by putting them into an either / or statement it can make it seem as if they are. This is what you have done with existence of god.
 
You still have the same problem in step 5 of not being related. It may seem as common sense that it can be only one or the other but they are instead separate claims that must be dealt with on their own. An example.

Either you have faith god exists or you have good reasons for his existence. You have chosen to give us what you would call a good reason and therefore using your thinking that must mean that you have no faith that god exists.

Neither faith or reason are related but by putting them into an either / or statement it can make it seem as if they are. This is what you have done with existence of god.


It does seem unlikely that the big bang was caused by natural causes AND that a God cable of creating the universe exists
 
And again, logical proofs don't prove that things exist. They only verify that an argument is sound. To wit:

• All nudibranches are mammals.
• Mammals exist.
• Therefore, nudibranches exist.

The argument is sound, but this does not prove that "nudibranches exist" is an accurate description of the world, because nudibranches are actually molluscs. It's not the job of logic to prove that the premises are accurate.
If either one of the premises or the conclusion is false then the argument is not sound.
You have claimed a nudibranches are actually molluscs, molluscs are not mammals so your first premise is false, your argument is not sound.
 
Last edited:
If we believe that everything came about naturally and your definition of God includes the power/motivation to create the universe - God cannot exist alongside natural processes.

Unless god is a natural process encompassing all natural processes. So confusing. :doh:lol:
 
The OP has no pudding just a mud pie
There is no proof there is only beleif and there is nothing wromg with that.

Do you really think mud pie is not pudding? Or does ice cream included defy the definition of pudding?
 
It does seem unlikely that the big bang was caused by natural causes AND that a God cable of creating the universe exists

Why does it seem unlikely? Yours is basically a god of gaps argument. We do not know why or how the universe started so lets invent some character to answer it. The lesson learned from your statement is , if we do not know the answer then do not invent one.
 
Are you claiming that only matters of fact can be proved, and not matters of reason? This seems counter-intuitive to me; not to you? What about mathematical proofs, for example? It seems to me that the very model of proof derives from logic and math.

Mathematical truths, generally referred to as theorems, are not composed of matter or energy but falls more into the same realm as laws of logic. These are more in the philosophical area known as presuppositions and/or axioms. So in that regard all forms of proof rely on a number of necessary presuppositions which, in and of themselves are beyond any form of traditional methods of so-called proof. The theistic view of God is that of a being which transcends and is greater than anything in this world including laws of mathematics, laws of logic, the notion of truth, etc.
 
I know god exists. I have to listen to her complaints for at least an hour every morning, and further complaints and demands throughout the day. An evening cocktail calms her down a bit. And after dinner TV is like a sedative for her.

Try proving me wrong and then tell her at your own peril.

Your God anyway.
 
The only logic in having a God (or gods) is to offer an explanation for that which otherwise could not (currently) be explained. Take the biblical dietary laws as an example: they are basically don't eat stuff which spoils quickly without refrigeration or which contain microorganisms/parasites which require complete cooking to render them harmless. Since folks back then had no idea why certain eating foods often caused illness in folks, they substituted a "command from God" as the reason for it to be accepted - much as a child accepts "because I said so" from a parent as a completely valid reason not to do/say something.

That's not true for many if not most theists. For many or most the belief in the supernatural or spiritual is not so much about this world but a belief or conviction of another.
 
Back
Top Bottom