Logical proof that God exists

That method of argumentation is just plain moronic and Illogical, it's just like me using that same argumental process to say that it is possible for me to be god existing in human form, in a piece of the whole, even though i am the whole. While also some saying that it is impossible for me to be god existing in a piece of the whole since how would something such as a whole fit into such a small piece which was created by the whole?. Thus you cannot prove that i am god nor can you disprove i am god because i may or may not have created circumstances which will make me appear the same as you, i will experience the same things as you which would make it seem impossible for me to be god and yet at the same time i would be god. Seriously....

Thus I deem myself worthy of this 'god' figure and title which has been disputed since the day reason was introduced and my existence was questioned and even before that. I mean come on. I guess since people are so eager to put themselves into a false sence of security about dying and committing 'sins' that they try to turn to a false figure that was fathomed centuries ago to put to rest society about the idea of dying while also trying to create a society where 'sins' will be committed less. This would create a populos being run by a false figure with ideas created by a moralistic person to try and create a peaceful society. But so far all this has done so far is had people argue over it and have wars over it, people killed to try and force people to believe it. So since I have only recently decided to unmask my identity and take the form of everyone, this would also mean that all the fighting that has occured has lead up to me. BUT since i do not believe in god or any other religious figure would this not contradict itself since i do not believe god to exist, yet i do?.

Logic cannot totally explain everything, we are just Humans and with the 10 percent of our brain that we use, we came up with the best thing that we could think of to help us use a process to help us better understand things and to better explain which we could not understand before. Which as far as i can see, was logic. So logic, in essence, is already flawed even though to us right now and the capacity that we are able to function at, believes logic to be ultimate and all-knowing, a process that will light every cave, prove a one sided arguement. So on and so forth. We 'prove' almost all 'intelligent' arguements that we can understand using logic and for the rest of the unproveable arguements we also use logic (the process used to prove one side of an arguement and one side only), but in a way so that it is manipulated to 'prove' both sides of the arguement. We cannot prove something that noone has any viable evidence for and even if viable evidence were brought forth that either proves or disproves something, the human would be either be VERY ignorant of it and toss it aside or be TOO accepting of it which could turn out later to be false anyways.

Can anyone disprove this, the idea that I am god?

Of course they effing can't which is why those arguements are completely and utterly dumb to try and win. Why try to confuse people with your train of thoughts on a self journey on what you think you should worship?

 

The only attribute I proved was existence, not whether he has a human form, etc.

Do you suggest that that is the only possible reason for people to believe in God?

What, religion has done nothing positive, ever?

No, because it is not "necessarily" true (refer to my definition on page one).

Whoa, hang on. Where did I say anything about having to worship God? All I've proven is existence, and nothing else, for that is the one thing that is provable.

 

There might be a fifth (or seventh, i forget) dimensional universe where God is apparent, and directly causes time to bend in his favor.

There's no evidence for it here though, in our universe.

In my opinion, the easiest part of this to attack is the fifth premise... You know, and I know that God is contradictory. It's your devil's advocate and my lack of insight that's preventing the counter arguments from flowing forth.

Which means one thing. Google time.

 

God, stripped of all attributes but existence, is nothing but existence itself. I do not really think that that is contradictory, for if it were, existence wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be arguing this.

 

If the reason for all existence is God, does that not make God outside of existence, if he is the maker of existence?

 

not quite, if god could see the future then that would infact mean we do not have any free will and all descisions are made for us because for god to see the future we cannot have free will as each descision we make changes the future slightly so if we want to speak logically it is impossible for him to see the future.

 

I don't know, for all that this logic proves is existence, not who made what.

 

All the possibilities are already there. God can forsee anything that can, and will ever happen.

It's just up to probability to determine which outcomes will occur.

 

Personally I think that most of your statements are very repetetive..I think there is a god..because it's bullshit that verything is coincidence..there's too much "exactness" in this world that literally could make or break us. Some greater force must be intervening.Which religion is correct? God only knows lmao. But, is there a god; I'm pretty damn sure of it.

 

Repetitive? Only because it's hard to find other synonyms for existence that have the exact same meaning.

Yet apparently, it can. If my logic is flawed, please, point out a specific error.

 

As a catholic, I do however believe in 'all mighty lord'. But Imo, God may exist.
Apparently around 15 years ago, they found the deciples bones in the EXACT place where Jesus was. On the other hand, I've been told many storys about God in my life. The fact of Adam and Eve I cannot believe, the fact that God made light/dirt/the dome (earth) ect, I can neither believe.

There have been many points said about this. It all comes down to if you have the faith/belief to believe in something you have not ever seen. If you have great faith and belief you would find it easy to believen God/Jesus. If your faith/belief is partly low like mine, you will find it quite hard to believen God.

Faith & Belief and the fact that you're history/family believes in this is where it comes down to.

 

I, Unlike others, do not put words into peoples' mouths and i am more than ABSOLUTELY sure that i did not say you said god existed in human form, i was using it as an example to say that it could be equally possible for me to be god, as it is for a non-existent god to exist

I am Beyond Suggesting

Seeing as it is based off of moralistic values and applied to a non-existent being whom supposedly applies them himself which would in turn make the people 'lower' than him want to exemplify the same traits to try and feel closer to this false figure. So by giving a highly moralistic made up figure such traits, the people were made to believe that if they followed these values, they would be able to achieve some sort of connection with this non-existent being and that if they were good little peons, would flourish in the also non-existent afterlife awaiting them with 'the creator'. Hmm so to follow a pratice that i believe to be just one big web of lies to control the people.....or to live my life and believe what i believe and end up in the same place but without the false sense of security about the afterlife and dying...hmm i think i'll more than happily take the current path i have chosen.

Then Prove or Disprove it, no matter what you do, it will seem as though i am human to the greatest extents i deem possible

As did I prove my existence and that it is equally possible for me to be this high figure that i myself do not even believe existed/exists/or will ever come into be. Well then why so eager to prove god's existence....ugh i hate that word.....(i prefer non-existent being)...and then try to gain the assurance of people around you that he does exist? I guess i'm just focusing on the underlying issue beneath your concept

I Really, Really could care less about what you think about what i believe. Everyone has their opinion and no matter how wrong it is, i am in no position to argue it. I purely base this off the fact that all you did, like most other mentally held back people, was agree with the concept proposed on the front page AND THEN thought you had the all-knowing power to criticize what i said. Seriously man, post something of at least minor intellect and maybe i'll consider you a person.

 

You tried answering questions with more questions. That's so christian it's not even funny.

 

I put words into people's mouths? Well, I'm sure you can point out a specific example.

You COULD be God, but this argument just argues for the existence of God, and nothing else.

So do you then state that that is the only reason people believe in God?

Oh, but you'll notice that my proof says nothing about whether God is an entity, conscious, moral, worthy of worship, etc. All it proves is existence, and no more.

As I have already said, you cannot prove or disprove it because it's not "necessarily" true or false.

You didn't prove your own existence.

It's possible, but that is unprovable.

I'm not trying to start a religion. It's an exercise in philosophy and logic.

Listen, you keep on repeating "non-existent being" throughout your entire post. Repeating something over and over again does not quite make it true.

 

I put words into people's mouths? Well, I'm sure you can point out a specific example.

You COULD be God, but this argument just argues for the existence of God, and nothing else.

So do you then state that that is the only reason people believe in God?

Oh, but you'll notice that my proof says nothing about whether God is an entity, conscious, moral, worthy of worship, etc. All it proves is existence, and no more.

As I have already said, you cannot prove or disprove it because it's not "necessarily" true or false.

You didn't prove your own existence.

It's possible, but that is unprovable.

I'm not trying to start a religion. It's an exercise in philosophy and logic.

Listen, you keep on repeating "non-existent being" throughout your entire post. Repeating something over and over again does not quite make it true.

What, I did?

 

This post is so spam that its not even funny.....has no logic, not an intelligent post and is not on the topic of the thread doing nothing but criticize him and emphasize your stupidity.

You guys fail to realize that these statements he made are true to there circumstances and to that only. Also he is not pointing to any certain god yet a singular one. Also xerodbzs12 post some proof to back your shit not just bud in for a post count. I can get plenty of answers for you, after that I have a few for you to answer. But Ill give you shot at it.

 

So, in what position are you in Shredder to deem what is necessary and what is not necessary, that in itself is flawed logic using a logic that was created using the capacity which we are only able to function at so far, to try and explain and understand what is around us.

To take one side of an unproven arguement using logic, is also Illogical. You have no idea how many contradictions are being set forth here man. So please explain why you are in a position to say what is not necessary and what is, seeing as you said that each of us is not necessary, would that not also imply that what we think and what we do is also unnecessary. So this discussion is pointless and should be ended immediately since Logic is being applied in ways which are Purely one-sided.

Excercising Philosophy and Logic....lol yeah i agree, but excercising out of its proper context

So you're pretty much saying that by repeating something doesn't make it true......so when people teach people something and then turn around and teach a different group of people the same thing, doesn't mean it is right. So, when you've repeated yourself in the past, does that also not mean you are more than a good portion, likely to be wrong? Logic is being ripped apart and being redefined in this thread so much that it is unbearable. I don't even wanna come back to see what other bs has been said but i need to see how roughly it is being smashed around.

 

You do not understand the word "necessary" as I am using it.

As I use it, it means that whatever the outcome is, the other one is impossible. For example: Existence is necessary. So, if existence exists, it is impossible for it not to exist, and if it doesn't exist, it is impossible for it to exist.

Oh, contradictions? Can you name some specifically?

Just did.

It certainly is one-sided, for it cannot be used to prove the other side.

How so?

 

Your train of thought, how you are using 'logic' and what you think it is, and basically whatever escapes your thoughts, and is excercised through your fingers (typed).

Wow no matter what anyone posts, you never agree even if it is right, you just focus on whatever is wrong and try to disprove them. Seriously, everything you say has either been a ridicule of a statement with a vague counter to it or a one sided rigged fight whereas you think you know everything. Now run along to wikipedia, the source of information to all your threads and the limit of your intelligence, and find something else to post about. Logic is flawed, end of story, therefore using logic won't get you anwhere expecially using it the way you are.

 

Oh, what, one entire contradiction? Can you name any SPECIFIC parts that contradict?

Actually, I logically evaluate what they say. If it doesn't make sense, I don't hesitate to point it out.

If I disagree with them, that would probably be a good thing to do, no?

Do I detect a generalization? Are you able to back this up, or no?

Oh, no, I just like to provide a Wikipedia link so that the average user can have a reasonable grasp of the subject matter. They're free to do whatever other research they may like.

Oh, my general mental agility and strength is defined by the source I provide to those who may not be educated upon the subject? What an odd idea...

I post about many different things.

Demonstrate how it is flawed, please.

You don't seem to be sticking to the subject. I must ask you to do so.