Logical proof that God exists

If this logic was valid, why would you still be arguing the existence of your creator?

 

thats like saying, why do we live if we know were gunna die?

Firsly your not the creator of this world, so you think your smart and you can outrun anyone.

Secondly my point has been the strongest on this thread.

Thirdly everything revolves about faith, and if you don't have faith (yourself) you shuldnt beleive in anything.

Lastly, That was dan barker who ever the hell he is, we don't do that, it all comes with FAITH, what he said is stupid.

its just like saying, rap is for cool people but i hate it! meh ill listen to it anyway.

and if you don't beleive in god, who do you turn to when u need that extra support, that's wht God does if you beleive

 

Because this logic only proves existence, and nothing more.

Obviously, I'm not the creator of this world, but I know I'm smart, and I know I can match most people in a battle of wits.

Not really. Your point was "I'm going to reject everything you say because I have faith".

Again, no it doesn't. Faith is simply denying all evidence, and just believing.

You're saying it's stupid, but why? I think it's perfectly reasonable.

You do know that he was a former evangelist, right?

That's what you THINK God does.

Some of us are perfectly capable of making it on our own without begging help from a God.

 

Fact: you cannot prove or disprove God. No amount of logic can, unless if God proves him by appearing in the clouds; instead of hiding away. Surely, a supposed omnipotent being raised above time and dimensions should be capable of putting aside a few minutes of his eternal life to save us from the evil hellfire.

That's a classic counter-argument, but leads me to suspect you for avoiding the question.

I never claimed it was. It's simply my outlook on the world. A logical conclusion based on the my own sense of logic.

That's a part of the sub-category of my earlier explanation.

You say God is a necessary being, but you don't explain why God is a necessary being. Life and evolution seems to develop fine without him.

I'm not emo. I'm not sitting here crying over our pointless existence, I'm accepting it, and enjoying my one and only life.

Why would I worship Satan? Satan is primitive superstition, like God, Zeus, Jesus, Allah, etcetera.

Praying to God is useless. Thousands of people die of AIDS, cancer and other diseases and other lethal situations every day; and seeing as the majority of the world consists of Theists, its only logical to assume that the majority of the people who passes away to inexistence are Theists as well. But to answer your question, I turn to my close friends and myself when I need that extra support.

 

Well, hang on, I'm proving the existence of God as stripped of all attributes but existence.

My point is that it doesn't necessarily apply to all Theists.

Please refer to the previous page for my definition of "necessary" as used in the proof.

 

No, you're not. You're twisting logic to make it suit the idea of the existence of God, and you're not accounting for the fact that different individual personalities = different individual senses of logic.

Honestly, I only read the first and last page. Really can't be bothered to read 11 pages and 200+ posts through.

 

Actually, logic is logic. 2 + 2 = 4, no matter what. My logic is infallible, and if you disagree, you need to show me where I made my logical error.

My definition of necessary, in this context: If existence exists, it it impossible for it not to exist, and if it doesn't exist, then it is impossible for it to exist.

 

You assume existence exists.

Please prove this.

 

To the contrary, I didn't assume it exists. It's what my logic proves.

 

So through your logic, is it possible for existence to not exist?

 

It is not possible for existence to not exist, for then the concept of existence would have to be logically impossible, which it is not.

 

There's a fine line between argumentative logic and mathematical logic. Your first post is argumentative logic, and argumentative logic is based on opinion and perspective.

I see what you did there. You're defining God as some sort of omni-existence, instead of a conscious god, that people generally refer to when talking about God.

 

Well, where specifically in my logic am I being anything other than factual and objective?

Well, not necessarily omni-existence, for it's just existence, with no limits defined. It's not an argument to prove the existence of God, but rather an argument to prove existence.

 

In your first post. Ockham's Razor describes that the most simple answer is most likely the true one - does a god sound simple? No.

^ That too is argumentative logic. You just presented yours as infallible.

Then why the hell is it called "Logical proof that God exists"? You're contradicting yourself.

 

It IS a logical proof.

Can you find a way for God to not exist if his premises are true, and his conclusion is false?

 

Occam's Razor is generally true, all things being equal. However, when differentiating between theories, it's not the simplest that works, it's the simplest out of those that explain everything.

Where is the flaw in my original logic? Can it logically be shown that my conclusion is false?

I began with God, and stripped it of all attributes except for existence. I decided to let this existence keep the name God, but it wouldn't have mattered what name I gave it.

 

If god existed, why would he want his power to be doubted

 

That question is irrelevant. I stripped God of ALL attributes, including the anthropomorphic ones we assign to him.

 

when you go into a dark room...you can either say its "darkness" or its the "absence of light" both of them have the same meaning but differnt views, if you belive in god you can say that its "darkness" and if you do not belive in him you can say its the "absence of light".God defeinetly exists i mean who created the universe? it was just there out of no where!?

 

Irrelevant. We are discussing the logic that I used, not "Oh, God MUST have done it!".