Logical proof that God exists

He effin warned me. w/e. i have a new way to pwn your "logic" ENTROPY
btw, i havn't read anyones posts but your first and the one right after my post,so please don't tell me that. Heres a warning for you. Don't post logic that isn't logical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielt0
When we wake up in the morning and see such an intelligently created world with DNA and nature + 1000's of arguements just like a well made painting we ponder at imaginging who made it.
I sincerely hope that you're not trying to make an argument for Intelligent Design here.

do I detect flaming?

 

There is no proof God existed. Only that Jesus, his son, existed (which is a recorded historical fact, even by Jesus' enimies.)

The point of religion is not to have undisputed proof in front of you that "so-and-so" exists, it's that you have faith in what happened, and you believe that there is a higher power somewhere beyond this world.

I understand that this isn't your point but your essential point (whether he exists or not), to those of us who are Catholic, does not/ should not matter.

Nonetheless, good thread idea. I disagree with your statements but I havn't taken the time to find evidence to prove you otherwise, so you are essentially correct. = "If there is no evidence that he ever existed then it is impossible that he exists." (Personally, I don't believe this message is true, but I don't really feel like argueing )

 

Logic, as long as it follows absolute truths, is always logical.

Yes. Hoping that somebody is not a supporter of Intelligent Design is clearly flaming.

Guess what? This thread proves the existence of God stripped of all attributes but existence. That is the exact same thing as a truck, computer, or dinosaur stripped of all attributes but existence. What are they, if not existence? Nothing. All attributes such as consciousness, color, size, power, etc. are all gone. Only existence itself remains, which is called God.

That's not my argument at all.

 

In order for something to not exist The idea must first be concieved.

 

What the hell..... no..... It's not like magic existed before we thought of it...

 

I had a think about this and saw your error pretty quickly.

What your doing, is using the extreme in the case he doesn't exist, but not in the case he does exist.

Let's twist it to the toher way around, like what you said.

God exists - then he MUST exist.
God Doesn't exist - the he can't exist.

Therfore, god MIGHT exist, so therefore he cannot because for him to exist, he MUST exist.


What you have done is jsut a paly on words.

Which, btw, isn't logical, but Illogical.

 

Wrong. If God does not exist, then his existence is logically impossible. However, there is nothing logically impossible about the existence of a God stripped of all attributes but existence (remember, a singular point cannot contradict with itself), so that cannot be the case.

 

Think about this: Can God kill himself?

If he can: He's not divine
If he can't: He's not almighty

 

logically existance is defined by humans so we must prove it to be non-existant before it can logically not exist.

and if we don't know about it it can't not exist.

 

Now that's a fucking paradox.

And yes, I'll agree there is a possobility of A god, but not a fact.

 

I still never really understood the point of this argument. You can apply this to a soda can and it will hold for that as well. But the part about necessary existence doesn't make logical sense. I don't even really see how there can be anything that isn't anything but something that exists.

 

It cannot apply to a soda can, for if one does not exist, its existence is not impossible. It only applies to a God stripped of all attributes but existence, for that is but existence itself.

 

But why could it not apply to a soda can stripped of all its attributes but existence?

 

Shredderbeam, i think this is cool and all, but honeslty, it seems like your throwing some words together to make something look deep. Especially because your posting it on sythe. I believe that g-d does exist, but he may be just a strand of life moving through the universe, the first living being. and from him we all came

 

It could.

Can you show my logic to be false?

 

Okay, let me make sure I'm getting what you're stating in each point right.

1) The existance of myself isn't necessary.
Nothing would change if I did or didn't exist.
This rule does not apply to God, because God is necessary.
2) God exists or doesn't exist, there is no in-between.
3) If God exists, then it is possible for Him to exist.
If God exists, He exists because He is necessary.
4) If God does not exist, then it is impossible for Him to exist.
If God does not exist, He is not necessary.
5) It isn't impossible for God to exist.
6) Because it is possible for God to exist, He exists.

If I'm wrong, let me know.

How is God necessary? Couldn't the Big Bang or some other event have accomplished Gods impact on the world? Assuming that He is necessary to the world because He created it, you would first need to show that nothing else could have done what He did, just like with me not being necessary. Someone else could accomplish what I do, nothing would change if I did or didn't exist. This doesn't mean I don't exist though. Why must God be necessary to exist? Why is God necessary?

 

It's not because God is possible, it's because if he didn't exist, his existence would be impossible. Of course, we're talking about a God stripped of all attributes but existence, which is nothing but existence.

 

Yes, if God doesn't exist, it is impossible for him to exist because he never existed in the first place.

But the fact that his existance isn't an impossibility doesn't mean that he does exist. You still haven't explained to me (or maybe I missed it) why his existance is necessary.

 

The thing is, his existence is not logically impossible.

God stripped of all attributes is but existence itself. Why is existence necessary? If it doesn't exist, it cannot exist, for from where would it come? If it does exist, then it must exist, for how could it not?

 

But that's identifying existence as god, which logically makes no sense, that only states another term for existence (by your logic).