• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Many proofs for God's existence.

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A. I write:
(a) Seems to me that your bulleted first sentence above is missing a word or two, no?

(b) About your term “life/existence”:
  1. I’ll agree, for now, that “All living things exist”; but I hesitate to agree that “All existing things live.” Wouldn’t the latter claim drag us into a tedious discussion about what “living” means and what is living and not living. What if I just say: “God is a Maximal Being (By definition)”?
(c) My restatement of your statements:
  1. God is a Maximal Being, if and only if such exists. (By definition)
  2. In a cosmos without God, God is not possible.
  3. God is possible.
  4. Therefore, a cosmos without God is impossible.
  5. Therefore, God exists.
Did I leave anything out?

(To be continued .... maybe)

You misunderstood.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
You misunderstood.

I was afraid of that. Because I don't know what I wrote that tells you that I misunderstood, I now have to decide whether
  • I should walk away or
  • Review and rethink what you wrote and what I wrote, and find my error or
  • Ask you for a hint or hints to find my error.
What do you recommend?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I was afraid of that. Because I don't know what I wrote that tells you that I misunderstood, I now have to decide whether
  • I should walk away or
  • Review and rethink what you wrote and what I wrote, and find my error or
  • Ask you for a hint or hints to find my error.
What do you recommend?

Hint: The proof for Oneness of God is exactly the same.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hint: The proof for Oneness of God is exactly the same.
One thing I've learnt from this thread is that you only answer questions you like and you only answer the parts of them you like.

Since that's not persuasive, perhaps you might consider addressing the substantive issues that people have raised in response to your post. One reason you might wish to do that is that the alternative is unhelpful to your cred.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
I will start with the ontological argument.

Something that is impossible to exist, cannot exist by definition and so doesn't exist.
Something that is possible to exist has two possibilities, it exists or doesn't exist.
Something that exists necessarily, cannot but exist by definition and so it exists.

Descartes argument from what I understand unlike what is taught in Academia goes something like:

There are levels of existence.
The highest level type is necessary.
God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being.
If God is properly defined to be necessary, it follows it exists in the real world.
That is we can see by merely remembering God is necessary by the concept of necessary, that it exists.

Some proofs to the above.

God is life to the absolute to the extent there can't be more possible life/existence then it (by definition).
If any life/existence is possible without God (any independent aside from God is possible) in any possible world, then God (not a Creator or lesser god is meant here, but the big absolute being) is not possible.
God is possible.
Therefore any life/existence is impossible without God.
It follows then God exists.

In fact, it's easy to see:

If God exists, he would be a necessary being.
If a necessary being exists, it would be possible for us to recognize that as an aspect or trait of it.

The predicate contention doesn't make sense:

(1) It's a red herring if true since those categories exist anyway.
(2) A dependent existence is lower then an independent or necessary existence as far existence attribute goes.

The bold is purposeful and self-explanatory.

(3) It would make necessary existence incoherent but then the same can be said about impossible to exist, and both are coherent and are directly related to the issue of existence.

If a necessary being can be conceived, it definitely has to exist.

When we think of God not only is it a candidate for necessity in definition, but it's in fact impossible any other thing exists by necessity but it.

At the end, the only faith premise is: "God is possibly conceived to be possible". If this is true, then he will be proven to exist by reflecting over what absolute existence implies.

I will be discussing more proofs.

God, defined as our genetic code's creator, is not necessarily the same being as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, highly benevolent theistic supernatural deity. The logical supposition is that such a supernatural theistic being doesn't actually exist until there is otherwise real evidence of such deity. The nonsensical assumption is that such a supernatural being really does exist until unproven.

A most powerful being doesn't necessitate an all powerful being who controls everything.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
One thing I've learnt from this thread is that you only answer questions you like and you only answer the parts of them you like.

Since that's not persuasive, perhaps you might consider addressing the substantive issues that people have raised in response to your post. One reason you might wish to do that is that the alternative is unhelpful to your cred.
I think that he's made it clear that his purpose in this thread is not to have any discussion with anyone, it's to give a lecture. We have no part in it except as students to ask questions which may or may not be answered, to understand better what he's teaching us. My understanding of what he has taught us so far is that if we agree that his God is possible, then we're agreeing that we haven't found any way to prove that it does not exist. I agree with that statement.

As I see it, adding the word "necessarily" in his definition is redundant. If existing is part of the definition of God, then anything that we call "God" must necessarily exist, or it isn't God, according to that definition. So it reduces to defining God as something that exists. By itself, that could be anything that we agree exists. Now I suppose that he'll add qualifications to that definition, defining "God" as something that exists and also has certain qualities. If we agree that it would be possible for something with those qualities to exist, then we're not denying that it exists, which he's equating with agreeing that it does exist. That's all I can see him saying up to this point.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that he's made it clear that his purpose in this thread is not to have any discussion with anyone, it's to give a lecture. We have no part in it except as students to ask questions which may or may not be answered, to understand better what he's teaching us. My understanding of what he has taught us so far is that if we agree that his God is possible, then we're agreeing that we haven't found any way to prove that it does not exist. I agree with that statement.

As I see it, adding the word "necessarily" in his definition is redundant. If existing is part of the definition of God, then anything that we call "God" must necessarily exist, or it isn't God, according to that definition. So it reduces to defining God as something that exists. By itself, that could be anything that we agree exists. Now I suppose that he'll add qualifications to that definition, defining "God" as something that exists and also has certain qualities. If we agree that it would be possible for something with those qualities to exist, then we're not denying that it exists, which he's equating with agreeing that it does exist. That's all I can see him saying up to this point.
As far as I can tell, no one has a definition of a real god, one that's not imaginary, one that exists in nature.

There isn't even a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have that a false candidate would not.

Those facts strongly support the notion that gods are imaginary.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's an old argument, and it's not convincing.

Agreed. And if it's not convincing, it's not proof if proof is defined as that which convinces.

As no number or combination of words can reveal a god, these proof-of-god arguments all fail.

Also, attempting to define something into existence has to be a losing proposition.

If a Necessary Living God exists, it exists whether we realize or not.

Likewise with a contingent living god. The use of the word necessary seems to be gratuitous here. May a god or gods exist, maybe not. If they do, maybe they are necessary, or maybe they are contingent.

the proof that if he is possible, he definitely exists, is sound.

It's possible that I have three children. Does that mean that I do? Did I just prove something? It's also possible that I have four children. Did I just prove that I have both three and four children? That's the quality of your proof.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Eternalness is a possibility (there is nothing irrational about it being possible).

Now Eternal existence if exists has two possibities:

(1) It just happened to be always there.
(2) It's something that is default state to the extent it can't be any other way, it's impossible to be other way.

When we think of greatness in perfect ultimate form, it's not it just happens God was some way and it turns out that is the reality we have to live with but God could've been a different type of being or have different qualities.

In fact, there is nothing irrational of the idea of necessary being. It's not incoherent.

This proves a necessary being is possible and we know if a necessary being is possible, it in fact, implies it exists.

Now I understand that as soon as you say a necessary being is possible, you imply it exists. I understand that. But there is nothing incoherent about the possibility of a Necessary being. That it's not logically impossible a necessary being exists.

I've already explained above how even if it's more rational even if the necessity itself didn't imply it exists, that eternal existence would be something that had to be the way it is and there couldn't be alternative in any possible world.

Another way to prove God is possible is to say Oneness of God can be proven if God is possible. And we went through a proof that if God is possible, why he would be One. The oneness of God like I showed in earlier post shows his greatness is such that necessity is implied by fact nothing can exist without dependency on it (independent existence aside from God would make God impossible).
 
Last edited:

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Agreed. And if it's not convincing, it's not proof if proof is defined as that which convinces.

As no number or combination of words can reveal a god, these proof-of-god arguments all fail.

Also, attempting to define something into existence has to be a losing proposition.



Likewise with a contingent living god. The use of the word necessary seems to be gratuitous here. May a god or gods exist, maybe not. If they do, maybe they are necessary, or maybe they are contingent.



It's possible that I have three children. Does that mean that I do? Not a proof to me.

I think if necessity is seen to be coherent as far existence goes, then, it can remembered that God exists when realizing he is a necessary being. That is a better way to phrase it. You can't define things into existence, but we can see God existing by remembering what he is. If he is necessary, and that is implied by our conceiving of him, then there is no tricks here, no defining into existence, we see that by thinking of Him, we realize necessity of existence is implied.

In fact, it's impossible to prove oneness of God (that is other gods can't exist) without the ontological proof that God is a Necessary being. If oneness of God can proven, then his existence being necessary is also implied by that.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Yup you are right.

That is why I said this is the only real disputable premise, if God's possibility can be known to be actually possible.

This is where the real discussion should be, because the proof that if he is possible, he definitely exists, is sound.

I agree.
I also see that a lot of people posting in this thread have failed to understand the argument that you have put forth here. They have offered other arguments which fail to address your argument or have put forth strawmen against your argument...

However, as you acknowledge, there is a real problem with the proof you have presented:

Why is God 'possible'?

You further elaborate 'rational possible'. In a different thread I had to argue quite hard when people were claiming a proof of the non-existence of God using the famous Argument from Evil... and this argument ran afoul of the very same problem that your proof has run into: 'logical possibility' This is non-trivial: you cannot assume it to be so. You must prove it or the argument falls flat on its face.

Eternalness is a possibility (there is nothing irrational about it being possible).

How do you know 'eternalness' is (rational) possible?
('being without beginning or end', 'continuing without interruption; perpetual')
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I will start with the ontological argument.

Something that is impossible to exist, cannot exist by definition and so doesn't exist.
Something that is possible to exist has two possibilities, it exists or doesn't exist.
Something that exists necessarily, cannot but exist by definition and so it exists.

Descartes argument from what I understand unlike what is taught in Academia goes something like:

There are levels of existence.
The highest level type is necessary.
God is defined to be so great or perfect and so as far as this issue goes, it would be a necessary being.
If God is properly defined to be necessary, it follows it exists in the real world.
That is we can see by merely remembering God is necessary by the concept of necessary, that it exists.

Some proofs to the above.

God is life to the absolute to the extent there can't be more possible life/existence then it (by definition).
If any life/existence is possible without God (any independent aside from God is possible) in any possible world, then God (not a Creator or lesser god is meant here, but the big absolute being) is not possible.
God is possible.
Therefore any life/existence is impossible without God.
It follows then God exists.

In fact, it's easy to see:

If God exists, he would be a necessary being.
If a necessary being exists, it would be possible for us to recognize that as an aspect or trait of it.

The predicate contention doesn't make sense:

(1) It's a red herring if true since those categories exist anyway.
(2) A dependent existence is lower then an independent or necessary existence as far existence attribute goes.

The bold is purposeful and self-explanatory.

(3) It would make necessary existence incoherent but then the same can be said about impossible to exist, and both are coherent and are directly related to the issue of existence.

If a necessary being can be conceived, it definitely has to exist.

When we think of God not only is it a candidate for necessity in definition, but it's in fact impossible any other thing exists by necessity but it.

At the end, the only faith premise is: "God is possibly conceived to be possible". If this is true, then he will be proven to exist by reflecting over what absolute existence implies.

I will be discussing more proofs.

Your entire argument presupposes the existence of what you are trying to prove. That does not work.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Better question is do we know?

"This too shall pass."

The story goes that a sultan consulted his wise men for a phrase to keep him sober in times of great joy and uplift him in times of great sorrow and that the wise men engraved a ring for him with a phrase of wisdom.

It means that all things in human experience are temporary (not eternal).

"And this, too, shall pass away."

It would seem that we do know that all things in human experience are temporary (not eternal).
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree that you do.
Nicely put.

But knowledge and experience (organized, process-ready memory) are the product of physical brain functions, and the idea that they involve or generate 'levels of existence' appears to be subjective and personal, not aspects of objective reality. If that's wrong, if they do indeed refer to aspects of reality, then 'level of existence' will have a definition in physics which I'd be interested to learn.

Meanwhile 'is' and 'is not' seem to be the only 'levels of existence' on the table.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You don't think subjective and personal aspects can reach objective reality and be part of 'levels of existence'?
A great deal of research is going into finding and describing the physical processes that generate subjective and personal experiences, and since better brain-research tools started to become available in the 1990s, progress has been enormous, though not nearly as enormous as the task.

That won't alter the subjective experience of perceiving the world through the combined input of the senses. If you're a human, 'me' and 'everything else' are two different realms. I've never stopped revisiting, and trying to advance, my understanding of subjective and objective, but I'm very confident that reality is the world external to the self, the place where you get your air, water, food, shelter, companions, resources, mate, society.

Whereas, as a wise person once remarked, probably rather acidly, If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I have no reason to think either supernatural or paranormal experiences are reflections of reality.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
I have no reason to think either supernatural or paranormal experiences are reflections of reality.
Where do you stand with dreams and imagination as reflections of reality?

With supernatural and paranormal experiences, understanding personification can go a long way. For myself, it does reflect from natural reality. With that in mind, lessons can be written objectively, no?
 
Top