Logical proof that God exists

[Shredderbeam]

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.

Well, you say God doesn't exist, but can you prove that?

The context in which I'm using the word "necessary" is that if God exists, it is impossible for him not to exist, and he does not exist, it is impossible for him to exist. That's all that it means.

 

[morrow99999]

Have anyone ever heard of St. Thomas? He is one of the Doctors of the Catholic Church. He has logical reasons for why God must exist.

 

[Walk On Home]

...But there is no context to it's existence. Your definition of 'necessary' has two contradicting statements in it, as you referred to it as a "definition", it isn't coherent logic.

There obviously is no physical proof that it does or doesn't exist, it's beyond our knowledge, you cannot prove it exists either.
Sure you can put wordplay on the whole idea, but there are always contradictions to it, this is not a perfect idea, it has flaws, which I have already pointed out.

For something to exist, it needs a concept, and the concept of god is not necessary, because had the concept not existed, there would be no god to consider existent.
However, the concept does exist, but based on the previous statement, it doesn't fully support it's existence, because had the concept not existed, there is no logic supporting it's existence, because it wouldn't have existed.
Ugh, if I could only explain it better...

 

[Shredderbeam]

...But there is no context to it's existence. Your definition of 'necessary' has two contradicting statements in it, as you referred to it as a "definition", it isn't coherent logic.

Au contraire, I only used one definition.

There obviously is no physical proof that it does or doesn't exist, it's beyond our knowledge, you cannot prove it exists either.
Sure you can put wordplay on the whole idea, but there are always contradictions to it, this is not a perfect idea, it has flaws, which I have already pointed out.

Word play? I have used none.

For something to exist, it needs a concept, and the concept of god is not necessary, because had the concept not existed, there would be no god to consider existent.
However, the concept does exist, but based on the previous statement, it doesn't fully support it's existence, because had the concept not existed, there is no logic supporting it's existence, because it wouldn't have existed.
Ugh, if I could only explain it better...

That is NOT the definition of necessary I am using! What I mean by "necessary" is "has to exist". If God exists, he is a necessary being, which means that he HAS TO exist. It would be impossible for him not to exist if he did exist. If God does not exist, he necessarily DOES NOT exist, which means that it is impossible for him to exist.

 

[Cheeter]

God is a necessary being. Because everything could be created form the big bang.

If the big bang occurred god didn't need to create everything.

God exists.

The big bang was not impossible to happen so therefor God doesn't exist

 

[Shredderbeam]

God is a necessary being. Because everything could be created form the big bang.

If the big bang occurred god didn't need to create everything.

God exists.

The big bang was not impossible to happen so therefor God doesn't exist

By necessary, I mean that if God exists, it is impossible for him not to exist. If God does not exist, it is impossible for him to exist.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

It always possible to prove a false statement in any logic system.

But... I'm trying to see how your logic follows. I wonder if I can replace the word God, with something that I know is false. (Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't apply, because it's self contradicting... that's one less god for us atheists.)

 

[Shredderbeam]

It always possible to prove a false statement in any logic system.

This one cannot prove it false, for the concept of God is not logically impossible.

 

[Walk On Home]

That is NOT the definition of necessary I am using! What I mean by "necessary" is "has to exist". If God exists, he is a necessary being, which means that he HAS TO exist. It would be impossible for him not to exist if he did exist. If God does not exist, he necessarily DOES NOT exist, which means that it is impossible for him to exist.

So if god exists, he has to be an existent being, right? That doesn't make sense though, because had he not existed, he wouldn't be an existent being, which is equally as logical as what you just stated.
It would be impossible for him not to exist if he did exist, UNLESS he is an impossible existent being, meaning he could not possibly exist.

Also, your statement "If God does not exist, he necessarily DOES NOT exist", you're basically saying 'if god doesn't exist, he has to be existent to not exist', meaning he can be considered existent, but he isn't existent if he were considered non-existent, which is just as logical as considering him existent, thus supporting the second part of your statement, meaning it's impossible for him to exist, if he were considered non-existent, meaning it's also just as logical as considering existent based on this statement.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So if god exists, he has to be an existent being, right? That doesn't make sense though, because had he not existed, he wouldn't be an existent being, which is equally as logical as what you just stated.
It would be impossible for him not to exist if he did exist, UNLESS he is an impossible existent being, meaning he could not possibly exist.

No. If God exists, it is impossible for God not to exist.

Also, your statement "If God does not exist, he necessarily DOES NOT exist", you're basically saying 'if god doesn't exist, he has to be existent to not exist', meaning he can be considered existent, but he isn't existent if he were considered non-existent, which is just as logical as considering him existent, thus supporting the second part of your statement, meaning it's impossible for him to exist, if he were considered non-existent, meaning it's also just as logical as considering existent based on this statement.

No. If God does not exist, it is impossible for him to exist.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

This one cannot prove it false, for the concept of God is not logically impossible.

Is your logic system capable of proving anything false?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Is your logic system capable of proving anything false?

Certainly, but that is irrelevant. Please, show me how my logic is inconclusive.

 

[Honeo]

All right. There are two possible scenarios: 1). God exists, and 2). God does not exist.

1). God exists. It is therefore not impossible for him to exist. If it was, he obviously wouldn't exist.

2). God does not exist. If he does not, it is impossible for a God to exist.

Since there is nothing impossible about the idea of God, we can rule out #2, which leaves us #1 left.

Yes, your right, it is not impossible for God to exist. Although, it is not probable. In statement #2 you say, "God does not exist. If he does not, it is impossible for a God to exist." Statement #2 cancels out #1; impossible is a more definite answer, while probable is not.

*Edit: I have just realized throughout this thread you have changed the statement "It is not impossible for God to exist" to "It is impossible for God not to exist." Explain?

 

[Resident]

Certainly, but that is irrelevant. Please, show me how my logic is inconclusive.

Because your logic is contradictory.

You say that God is a necessary being; that is, he HAS TO exist, IF he exists. If it is not impossible for God not to exist, and he does not exist, it would be impossible for him to exist. But nothing about the idea of God is impossible. So God exists, right?

By saying that God exists, he becomes this necessary being. But, by God being a necessary being, it becomes impossible for God to not exist. Nothing about the concept of God is impossible; this includes the concepts of existence and non-existence.

So where is God?

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

I think you have proven:

If God is necessary, then God exists.

And you assume the premise.

Although that's just logic. In reality, you need to define God, exist, and necessary.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Yes, your right, it is not impossible for God to exist. Although, it is not probable. In statement #2 you say, "God does not exist. If he does not, it is impossible for a God to exist." Statement #2 cancels out #1; impossible is a more definite answer, while probable is not.

It doesn't cancel it out. It shows why statement #2 is not possible.

I think you have proven:

If God is necessary, then God exists.

And you assume the premise.

Although that's just logic. In reality, you need to define God, exist, and necessary.

Please re-read all of my previous posts. I keep on defining what I mean by "necessary", and nobody seems to understand.

 

[the_wippit]

The meaning of the word existence

What do we mean by existence? The very definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. For us, that means that something is part of our system ('The known world'). God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god.

 

[Honeo]

It doesn't cancel it out. It shows why statement #2 is not possible.

What shows statement #2 isn't possible? Statement #1 or #2.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Then the totality of all existence does not exist, because it does not exist in relation to anything.

Honeo, statement #2 is shown to be incorrect due to statement #1.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

That means that everything not determined to exist or not exist, must exist.

Except for the necessary premise, I'm not sure about that. Perhaps that's there to prevent silly corollary proofs like Unicorns exist...