Logical proof that God exists

all of this is illogical hypothesis, and might even be theroys at most becasue they can be proven or disproven enless he jumps out of the sky saying im god or something you get the point.

and to go along with all of you 1-6 hypothesis's, lets jsut have some word play and change the word god with 5 headed bat monsters. would that make them exist? yes according to your theroy it does.

case closed

 

First, it is perfectly logical. Second, there is no hypothesis to be found. Third, a theory is actually a well-substantiated amalgamation of facts, evidence, predictions, and explanations that is logically self-consistent.

You are correct. It would prove the existence of five-headed bat monsters stripped of all attributes but existence. That would reduce them to the level of nothing BUT existence. They wouldn't be bats, they wouldn't have heads, etc.

 

Reading just this page made me think god exists and made me not think he exists. No one can prove or dis-prove his existance. You can say those ideas of everyones can prove existance of him, but then agian it could also prove nothing.

Unless I see a man come from the sky, with old clothes and hit the ground with no parachute, hes not existing to me.

 

Ok, I think this is a logical thread. But one of the things that proves God's existence is the world. Do you think that man just happened to stumble into the world? No God created this world. I don't think he's trying to convert you athiests but instead trying to prove God's existence. And Shredder, I applaud your effort.

 

It's a proof for existence itself, not the Judaic-Christian God.

I am an Atheist. All I'm doing is playing around with logic to prove that existence exists.

The world can be created by natural processes. It doesn't have to be the very human God of the Bible.

 

When you say if God exists, he necessarily has to exist..why exactly is it necessary for him to exist? I don't get that one part..
He could just be existing but without any..necessity for his Being in this world. Humans could be getting along fine without him, and He could simply be observing our every move, like some sort of spectator.

 

God stripped of all attributes but existence is nothing but existence. Existence is what is necessary.

 

Okey had to read this twice to understand it properly...lol

One thing:

En contraire, there is a contradiciton, for if god exists, and his existance is certain, what was there prior to his existance? While you can use the slightly trite defence of the "rules of space and time" do not apply, can you not apply the same defence to the beginning of the universe?

Perhaps "He" exists, perhaps he does not. Perhaps its not for us to find out tille we're 6 feet under

On a slightly lighter note, i disagree with "you are nothing". To quote some random person:

You are nobody. Nobody is nobody. Nobody is perfect, therefore you are perfect. Notice the similarity in argumentative structure?

 

There can be no contradiction. A singular point cannot contradict with itself. You need two or more, which God, stripped of all attributes but existence, is not.

 

But then is god stripped of all his attributed necassiry? The moment you remove his omnipotency and ability to influence in terms of creation or sustaining life in general, he is no long a necessity.

Think about it, you can have someone build you a television, but do u require the presence of the creator once the television has been made?

C. Luke: Nah makes perfect albeit twisted sense...lol

 

You're right as far as removing omnipotence, omniscience, etc. However, when you reduce him to mere existence, it's hard to argue that that isn't necessary.

 

Again i disagree, by your own arguement existence is insignificant. Assuming god merely created the universe- and thats assuming a lot- and that we have stripped him of all other attributes- he is no longer needed. He would be as trivial as you or I- having served his purpose in the universe. But that is a very cynical approach.

However, i disagree with your first point about us being nothing as a matter of principal- that people are irrelevant. You can not prove to me that my perception of reality is not indeed reality, while your perception of reality is a reflection of what my reality dictates your reality to be. In such a case, whoever the person reading this , would himself be the only "real" thing, and all arguments. The beauty of this reasoning is that no matter what you say to argue your existence and/or preception of reality - being different from mine as being actual reality, i can dismiss as an illusion of my own creation in an attempt to change the actual reality and hence false in nature, as reality can not be changed. But im diverging.

My point being, is that you say that the universe will get on fine without you or me, and perhaps that is your perception of reality, which you and i disagree upon, and thus you have no way of proving it as actual reality. To a self-centred person, their existence is ultimate and a certainity and everything else revolves around themself- and while this is an extremity there is no way to logically dissuade this person form this egocentric belief.

Newayz im tired of arguing- i'll come back 2moro

 

It's not a proof for the existence of a God who can do nothing. It's a proof for existence itself. Without existence, would we be here?

You're right. That was the subject of the "You do not exist" thread a while ago. But then again, to me, you seem to be the illusion.

Well, when I say "you", I mean a generic person. If said egocentric person points out a random person on the street, to them, if they died, it would not change the fact of their existence.

 

You got me -0- God exists logically
And for me, spiritually too

 

Doesn't it? Take for example a mental person, or someone who hallucinates something. The hallucination can not be said to be truely existing as it is a figment of ones imagination, expanded to our case, if i take the stand point that i am real and nothing else is, all being my imagination, then everything else does not exist. My point being that said egocentric person could argue that the person on the street did not exist to start with and hence did not die, as it/he/she wasn't alive to start with.

Are we really in existance? How do u define existance?

 

That isn't logical. All I proved was that existence exists.

They could argue that, yes, but the point is that the removal of them from their experience does not signify the end of their world.

As Google tells me, existence is the state of "being". I view it as the opposite of non-existence. Something has to exist: The concept of nothing existing whatsoever is impossible.

 

I don't understand how any logical thinking person can believe the world and all its complexities got here by chance..

mind boggling

 

That's exactly how it got here; by chance. Look how many galaxies there are. And in all of those galaxies look how many solar systems there are. And in each solar system look how many planets there are. There infinitely more stars than grains of sand on the world's beaches. So on one of those planets, life had to have started. It's a numbers game.

 

xD

and by chance we were created too, huh?
some things just mixed together and told humans to have 2 eyes, ears, arms, and legs?

It's like a radio sitting idle on a table for 100 years..

no matter how long that radio is sitting there NOTHING WILL MAKE IT TURN ON the radio can only be turned on by interference from a HIGHER POWER

so if the world was just sitting idle for some MILLION YEARS how the heck can all of a sudden some "stuff" mix together and create a complexity such as humans?

impossible

 

MosDef, life doesn't appear all at once. It appears in stages, and has been gradually getting more and more complex. This slow development of life makes it possible for it to exist without a higher power.

Anyway, what does this have to do with my logic?