• 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!

Would God's "Necessity" Amount to Proof of God's Existence?

Can a purely logical proof of deity confirm the existence of deity?


  • Total voters
    13

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
For me, at least, that purely logical necessity affirmed that god both and neither exists nor does not. So I picked #2 in the poll.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
In my view if you could establish God as a logical certainty then it would be perverse to deny it. Of course, simply establishing that a deity must exist by necessity doesn't tell anything about said deity beyond its necessity. Admitting that a non-contingent agent exists doesn't in and of itself establish the likelihood of any particular religious claim.

I really don't see how empirical evidence of the transcendent is possible. God is not in the world of contingent things.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
In my view if you could establish God as a logical certainty then it would be perverse to deny it. Of course, simply establishing that a deity must exist by necessity doesn't tell anything about said deity beyond its necessity. Admitting that a non-contingent agent exists doesn't in and of itself establish the likelihood of any particular religious claim.

I really don't see how empirical evidence of the transcendent is possible. God is not in the world of contingent things.

Suppose a physicist came up with a purely logical (i.e. purely mathematical) proof that the universe was x. Would that be sufficient to establish that the universe was in reality x? Or would empirical confirmation of the proof be needed? And if empirical confirmation of the proof is not needed, why do real life physicists insist on empirical confirmation of theoretical physics?
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?

I voted "no" because logical proof is an intellectual exercise which might not have any validity in a weird and still poorly understood universe.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Suppose a physicist came up with a purely logical (i.e. purely mathematical) proof that the universe was x. Would that be sufficient to establish that the universe was in reality x? Or would empirical confirmation of the proof be needed? And if empirical confirmation of the proof is not needed, why do real life physicists insist on empirical confirmation of theoretical physics?
I see what you're saying now. I'd agree.

But if you can't intelligibly address the question of why anything exists without invoking an unmoved mover, then how is it rational to insist in its rejection if you concern yourself with the question at all?
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I picked answer #3 because I'm ornery sometimes.

I think back a few years ago when Stephan Hawking boldly announced that he could find no need or evidence for God. Many theists pooh-poohed his conclusion, and many atheists said, "Well of course he found no evidence for God."

As a thought experiment, consider what the responses would have been if he had instead boldly announced that he indeed found a need for and evidence of God. I think a good many people, even if he was able to show the calculations, etc., would say, "Well, Hawking has gone off the deep end! We'll have to demonstrate why his conclusion is wrong," and then set to work to do just that. I would think that most physicists, at least at first, would refuse to accept his evidence and reasoning, and even if it stood up to scrutiny, would still work to undermine his conclusion. After all, he also believes that there are aliens, and that they are likely out to destroy us. I would suspect that his reputation would be tarnished, and most other physicists would no longer take him seriously, at least in the short term. Others would welcome his announcement with, "See, even a great physicist like Hawking sees the need for God! We are vindicated!"
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I see what you're saying now. I'd agree.

But if you can't intelligibly address the question of why anything exists without invoking an unmoved mover, then how is it rational to insist in its rejection if you concern yourself with the question at all?

It might not be rational to insist on its rejection, but it also might not be rational to insist on its existence (Depending of course, on how you're using "rational" in this context). At any rate, the question is basically whether pure reason alone (without empirical evidence) can demonstrate existence.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?
Such “proofs” typically support the existence of some kind of extremely powerful being but are then used to support the existence of a very specifically defined deity. I think you can prove something to exist by dint of its logical need to exist based on the evidence but you need to be very careful about the scope of which you’re actually proving.

If I was in London this morning and New York this afternoon, you’d probably conclude I travelled by plane because we know of no other means of travelling that distance so quickly. It isn’t proof I travelled by plane though, only that there is some manner by which I could be transported from London to New York in no more than a couple of hours. Also, even if you conclude it was by plane, you still can’t say exactly which kind of plane (commercial, chartered, private, military etc.).
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
I don't think its possible to show god as necessary, it will forever show a gap even if god really does exist in said gap.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?
Well, it apparently works for quantum physics, multiverse, string theory, dark matter, etc.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I don't think its possible to show god as necessary, it will forever show a gap even if god really does exist in said gap.

We're only assuming it's possible to show god's existence is necessary for the sake of discussion. Nothing more than that.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?
it is sufficient.
there is no other means.

gotta love that coffee.

Well, it apparently works for quantum physics, multiverse, string theory, dark matter, etc.
I like that discussion I saw about dark matter and energy.
seems science now leans to believing in something greater than what we know as the universe.....
hint....hint.....hint...
 

Kartari

Active Member
Hi Sunstone,

Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?

Well, such a logical proof presupposes that a satisfactory definition for this particular deity also exists (we have no such definition to date, just ambiguous and superficial notions). If a given deity is satisfactorily defined in meaningful terms, and a valid set of logical proofs for both its existence and for its role as intelligent designer were established, then it would certainly be a great start. As it stands, none of these has been accomplished to my knowledge, so I'd be more apt to wonder what might have been slipped into that stimulating coffee. But if accomplished, while it would not suffice as conclusive proof without evidence, it would certainly garner my respect as a valid possibility.

Edit: I assume that by the deity's "necessity," you mean necessary for existence to be (e.g. this deity is an Intelligent Designer)?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?
Well, if it is a logical 'proof' then it must be right. But I would have to think any 'proof' in this case would be of something quite vague.
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Yes, you must follow the logic. Even if you don't like where it leads. People believe what they are compelled to believe. Unassailable logic compels reasonable people. Unreasonable people are compelled by all sorts of weird stuff.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Well, if it is a logical 'proof' then it must be right. But I would have to think any 'proof' in this case would be of something quite vague.

Unfortunately, a logical proof can be valid while not yet sound. That is, the validity of the proof can be determined logically, but the soundness of it might rely on empirical confirmation.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Suppose a physicist came up with a purely logical (i.e. purely mathematical) proof that the universe was x. Would that be sufficient to establish that the universe was in reality x? Or would empirical confirmation of the proof be needed? And if empirical confirmation of the proof is not needed, why do real life physicists insist on empirical confirmation of theoretical physics?
Even Newtonian Physics works both logically and empirically--on the macro level. Once you get down to the quantum level, all of the rules change. So, even if you have both logical and empirical proof, that proof is by no means absolute.
 
Top