Logical proof that God exists

[Cruel__Machine]

Shredder, I understood ever word, no need to repeat. Now explain why this is any different:

It is possible for God not to exist. If God exists, it is impossible for him not to exist. But it is possible, therefore he does not exist.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Shredder, I understood ever word, no need to repeat. Now explain why this is any different:

It is possible for God not to exist. If God exists, it is impossible for him not to exist. But it is possible, therefore he does not exist.

Because that argument would require that the concept of God be logically impossible, which it is not.

 

[Resident]

oh you could, it just depends on what choices he let you have free will on

ok there's really nothing left to say, you suck cocks. just shut the fuck up, before you hurt yourself trying to think up even more pathetic insults about a perfectly acceptable religion.

also, what religion are you, where everything is so perfect? hell, i might even convert. the fact that you're an arrogant cunt stopped being funny right about here; there's only so much stupidity a person can emanate before it starts to irritate the people around him.

every post i've read from you further and further proves that you belong in the forum a few levels down; it's created for shit like you.

 

[Cruel__Machine]

Because that argument would require that the concept of God be logically impossible, which it is not.

So... the possibility of God's nonexistence renders the impossibility of His existence? How so?

 

[Shredderbeam]

oh you could, it just depends on what choices he let you have free will on

Why would a God give you free will on some things, yet not on others?

So... the possibility of God's nonexistence renders the impossibility of His existence? How so?

The idea of God is not logically impossible. If God did not exist, it would be impossible for God to exist. Yet, it is not be impossible for God to exist. That is the basis on which I rule out option $2.

 

[the_wippit]

what has sythes favorite Ideological Zealot been sniffing? any ways i do see where what ur getting across but im gonna switch sides and attempt to disprove you

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature -- which amounts to existing without any nature at all.

 

[magi]

ooooooh! I have another argument since wippit gave me inspiration to keep arguing even though it's futile =P

God, being a supernatural being, doesn't have to abide to our logic and can therefore do whatever he wants whether he exists or not. Logic won't be able to solve this one for us. We can't just assume he exists because this is what the logical thing to do is.

This reminds me of the argument about the 3 cell-mates -.-

 

[Shredderbeam]

what has sythes favorite Ideological Zealot been sniffing? any ways i do see where what ur getting across but im gonna switch sides and attempt to disprove you

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature -- which amounts to existing without any nature at all.

My argument says nothing about what nature God exists in, whether he's all-powerful or not, whether he's moral, or whether he's even conscious.

I mean the God that I follow lets me make my own choices, does yours?

If you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, then you and Resident follow the same God.

Why would God create humanity without letting them choose for themselves?

It's not like you each have your own God, each living in his own heaven, and directing his own followers as he sees fit, you know.

God, being a supernatural being, doesn't have to abide to our logic

Logic is logic. No matter who you are, or what powers you have, 2 + 2 = 4, a square has four equal sides, and a rectangular circle is impossible.

 

[top score]

1. God does exist and if he did not exist the nhow did we come to be? did the world say hey im going to form today? no god did a week of work and bam,

2. God must exist and has always exist. God started the universe god started time and thus began time (confusing as shit) and without god there would be no life forms anywhere if god is not alive then we would not be alive

3. stfu u stupid atheiests god has to be real if not explain how the world was started and how the big bang created exsistance... there could be no big bang without god btw....

I'm very tired, thats why this is so dumb sounding

 

[dpunk]

1). God is a necessary being.

You are not a necessary being. The world will get along perfectly well without you. You can either exist, or not exist, and the world will continue on. God is not such a being, as will be explained a bit later.

2). God as so defined either exists or does not exist.

According to the definition provided by the first point, God either exists, or doesn't exist.

This first premise is basically the only true part of the argument.

3). If God exists, he necessarily exists.

If God exists, he has to exist.

4). If God does not exist, he necessarily does not exist.

If God does not exist, he cannot exist.

The first part is correct, but the last part isn't. It is possible for a micro black hole to exist, and for a micro black hole not to exist. Micro black holes pop in and out of existence according to Quantum Mechanics, so it is both possible for one to exist, and one not to exist. Since the definition of a God is not a premise in this argument, one can make no statement that this principle is not true for a God.

5). The idea of God is not self-contradictory.

The idea of God has no contradictions in it. It is not impossible for God to exist.

This depends on which idea of a God you accept. Since this is not given in the premise of the argument, no judgment can be made on whether or not the idea is coherent.

6). God exists.

Since it is not impossible for God to exist, and since if God does not exist, he cannot exist, God exists.

Since the premises cannot be proven true from the given information, the conclusion also cannot.

Discuss.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dorito]

Shredderbeam, I must say I was a bit puzzled at first when I saw this thread, but then again, when have you ever made a thread that hasn't puzzled me.

May I ask whether or not you are an atheist before I continue my response to this discussion?

 

[Shredderbeam]

The first part is correct, but the last part isn't. It is possible for a micro black hole to exist, and for a micro black hole not to exist. Micro black holes pop in and out of existence according to Quantum Mechanics, so it is both possible for one to exist, and one not to exist. Since the definition of a God is not a premise in this argument, one can make no statement that this principle is not true for a God.

The God I'm talking about would be a singular God.

This depends on which idea of a God you accept. Since this is not given in the premise of the argument, no judgment can be made on whether or not the idea is coherent.

Take the Christian God, and strip it of all attributes, including its morality, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. That renders it as but a single point of existence.

May I ask whether or not you are an atheist before I continue my response to this discussion?

Assuming an Atheist is one who does not believe in a personal God, then yes, I am.

 

[Sarah]

Those points are very Valid, However thats not going to change anyones mind on their beliefs.

If you don't understand those just fire at it with an open minded approach.

 

[CrudeSapphire]

that whole thing makes no sense.

It does makes sence, it just hasn't got a real point that is proven if you ask me.

 

[Sold]

I don't think god exsist, I'm quite sure that there were some old drunken guys writing it just for fun..

"He could walk on water" hahahahahahaha!

 

[dpunk]

The God I'm talking about would be a singular God.



Take the Christian God, and strip it of all attributes, including its morality, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. That renders it as but a single point of existence.

If something is not omniscient and/or omnipotent, then it doesn't fit the definition of what we call a God.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It does makes sence, it just hasn't got a real point that is proven if you ask me.

How does it not prove its point?

I don't think god exsist, I'm quite sure that there were some old drunken guys writing it just for fun..

Can you argue with the logic I have presented?

If something is not omniscient and/or omnipotent, then it doesn't fit the definition of what we call a God.

Whether or not it is omniscient or omnipotent is unknown. All this proves is a singular point of existence.

 

[Walk On Home]

What the crap? That's so biased.
Whoever wrote that one-sided bullshit needs to understand that the door swings both ways.
If nobody ever came up with the absurd concept of god, you'd have no arguement.
There is no existence beyond what we know.

 

[Shredderbeam]

What the crap? That's so biased.
Whoever wrote that one-sided bullshit needs to understand that the door swings both ways.
If nobody ever came up with the absurd concept of god, you'd have no arguement.
There is no existence beyond what we know.

Biased? How? If it swings both ways, please demonstrate this.

 

[Walk On Home]

God is not a necessary being because it doesn't exist, there is no logic stated before your first point, which contradicts the whole point of it's existence.
The world can get along perfectly well without the whole concept of having a god, which makes this god an unnecessary being.
If this concept had not existed, there would be no logic concerning it's existence. The concept of his existence in unnecessary, meaning god itself is unnecessary, making it non-existent.