Logical proof that God exists

[Shredderbeam]

If nobody had ever thought of god your logic wouldn't have existed.

Perhaps nobody would have conceived of this train of thought, but that hardly makes it invalid, for logic is just so, and based upon principles, not real-world considerations.

You cannot have logic to explain something that's non-existent, which is what god is.

Oh, you say that God does not exist, but on what authority?

That is a bias though, you could be right, but you're equally as wrong, there's no perfect logic to support this theory, it has flaws, thus you are not right, and you're not wrong, you can only defend yourself against those flaws, but you are still never right.
I'd like to see the man who has a perfect theory on such a subject.

So I'm right, and I'm wrong? Well, I like the "right" part, but how am I wrong?

So where is God?

God could be located on a higher/lower plane of existence, outside the universe, within it, or any combination of those.

 

[Shadow_assn]

Only UNEDUCATED MINDS believe that god is real. If you go to school and learn basic logic, you will understand god doesn't exist.

I have an invisible dragon in my garage...What?
You don't believe me? Why?
Cause he's invisible?
He's there, you just can't feel hear see or sense him...
He doesn't do anything when you talk to him, but hes there...
Why don't you believe me?



1. God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent. (Correct?)

2. God being omniscient, knows the existence of evil. (Correct.)

3. God being omnibenevolent, has the intention of eliminating the presence of evil. (Correct...)

4. God being omnipotent, can eliminate the presence of evil. (Correct!)

5. From 2,3 and 4, we can deduce that the presence of God imply the absence of evil.

6. There IS evil.

7. From 5 & 6,therefore,we deduce that God as defined in (1) does not exist.


reply?


also how did god come to be?

 

[jebckr]

"par·a·dox
–noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. "

To me, this is the exact definition of what you are trying to get across. Especially from an athiest point of view.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

God could be located on a higher/lower plane of existence, outside the universe, within it, or any combination of those.

Doesn't that make God logically impossible?

Being in two places at once.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I have an invisible dragon in my garage...What?
You don't believe me? Why?
Cause he's invisible?
He's there, you just can't feel hear see or sense him...
He doesn't do anything when you talk to him, but hes there...
Why don't you believe me?

Your view of a God and mine are quite different.

1. God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent. (Correct?)

2. God being omniscient, knows the existence of evil. (Correct.)

3. God being omnibenevolent, has the intention of eliminating the presence of evil. (Correct...)

4. God being omnipotent, can eliminate the presence of evil. (Correct!)

5. From 2,3 and 4, we can deduce that the presence of God imply the absence of evil.

6. There IS evil.

7. From 5 & 6,therefore,we deduce that God as defined in (1) does not exist.


reply?

This is known as the Problem of Evil.

There are three theodicies that deal with this.

1). Augustinian Theodicy.
This states that everything is good, but some things have been corrupted.

2). The Irenaean Theodicy.
This holds that the purpose of God creating the world was not to create an environment where humans could experience a maximum of pleasure, and a minimum of pain, but rather an arena for "soul-building", where free people, grappling with the agonies of their existence, could become purified, and thus, "Children of God".

3). Process Theodicy.
This holds that God is not all-powerful, and is not able to fully control the world, but rather, is able to influence it. He is incapable of removing all evil from our world.

To me, this is the exact definition of what you are trying to get across. Especially from an athiest point of view.

I detest that definition. I much prefer "this statement is a lie" to be the example of a paradox. Anyway, it's not a paradox, but something that's just hard to understand.

Doesn't that make God logically impossible?

Being in two places at once.

I currently exist in multiple places at once, all several feet away from each other. I also exist at several points in time, one being around 1989, and the other being some 60 years into the future.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

I currently exist in multiple places at once, all several feet away from each other. I also exist at several points in time, one being around 1989, and the other being some 60 years into the future.

You WERE in those points in time, and you were in specific locations during those time frames.

...do you really want to debate about if you can be in two locations at the same time?

 

[reddogwwa]

My intent is not to confuse.

Well you are. =)

No, it's just that if he does exist, it's hardly going to be impossible for him to exist, is it?

Well if its a proven fact that he does exist. Then how could it be possible for him not to exist?

Incorrect. I said that if God doesn't exist, then his existence is impossible.

Just like before just reworded. Well if its a proven fact that god does not exist. Then how could he actually be in existence?

Nope, it's proof.

Wheres this proof you speak of? Mmmmmm lol?


I say your neither accepting that god does exist nor are you denying his existence. I think your just creating a paradox to get people thinking for once =)

You WERE in those points in time, and you were in specific locations during those time frames.

...do you really want to debate about if you can be in two locations at the same time?

Well he exists in 1989, if you look at a picture from 1989 in his house he sure to be in one, and he exists to this day which is Sunday, December 2, 2007. So I guess he exists in 2 places if you want to look at it like that?. But as for you existing tomorrow or 60 years from now you could drop dead any minute which would evidently end your existence lol. SO I say no you do not exist in the future.

 

[jebckr]

You WERE in those points in time, and you were in specific locations during those time frames.

...do you really want to debate about if you can be in two locations at the same time?

Yes, he does...

And why do you detest my definition? Because it makes sense in relation to my point? =)

 

[Shredderbeam]

You WERE in those points in time, and you were in specific locations during those time frames.

Actually, that's using the classical Newtonian vision of the universe, which perceives time not as a dimension, but as a universal constant, a property of the universe.

...do you really want to debate about if you can be in two locations at the same time?

I was only joking, but you can certainly make a thread if you wish.

Well you are. =)

Whose fault is that?

Well if its a proven fact that he does exist. Then how could it be possible for him not to exist?

You misread me. Try again.

Just like before just reworded. Well if its a proven fact that god doesn't not exist. Then how could he actually be in existence?

That's the thing. He couldn't.

\Wheres this proof you speak of? Mmmmmm lol?

First post of this thread.

I say your neither accepting that god does exist nor are you denying his existence. I think your just creating a paradox to get people thinking for once =)

Nope.

And why do you detest my definition? Because it makes sense in relation to my point? =)

I was brought up in a world of puzzles involving "this statement is a lie", and such. It's irritating to think that something simply surprising is a paradox.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

It's only a recent interpretation time that allows you to say that all points in time are equally valid, and equally exist.

But it's a model. It's like a theory that NAMBLA wants to do.

In either case - time isn't important here. Let's specify a time. The present.

In the present, you cannot be in two places in at the same time (time in the second sense, is a different meaning of... ah forget it.)

 

[Shredderbeam]

Shh. Back on topic.

 

[reddogwwa]

It's only a recent interpretation time that allows you to say that all points in time are equally valid, and equally exist.

But it's a model. It's like a theory that NAMBLA wants to do.

In either case - time isn't important here. Let's specify a time. The present.

In the present, you cannot be in two places in at the same time (time in the second sense, is a different meaning of... ah forget it.)

Isn't time relevant?

On topic: Shredder your a mysterious piece of existence, I'm going to be bed I'll be on tommorow.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

Shh. Back on topic.

This IS relevant. If you accept this, then that means that God is self contradicting, and is impossible.

And the proof would fail.

 

[Shredderbeam]

This IS relevant. If you accept this, then that means that God is self contradicting, and is impossible.

And the proof would fail.

Actually, there was a neat little video called "Visualizing the 10th Dimension". It showed that the 10th dimension was, in fact, a single point on the plane of all possible existence. If God exists on that level, the he could indeed be everywhere at once.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

Actually, there was a neat little video called "Visualizing the 10th Dimension". It showed that the 10th dimension was, in fact, a single point on the plane of all possible existence. If God exists on that level, the he could indeed be everywhere at once.

Watching that now... and done.

The tenth dimension encloses all paths, from big bang to death, of all possible universes, in all possibility, in one point.

If God were to exist on that level, he would not be the being that we know and love. To the contrary, he would be more impersonal than anything we could imagine.

I'll give you that. But that would not be acceptable to any theist. It's like you have proven the existence of a tenth dimensional particle (or string), and named it god, just for the sake of pissing off all theists and atheists.

But you wouldn't do that, would you?

 

[Wendy]

Watching that now... and done.

The tenth dimension encloses all paths, from big bang to death, of all possible universes, in all possibility, in one point.

If God were to exist on that level, he would not be the being that we know and love. To the contrary, he would be more impersonal than anything we could imagine.

I'll give you that. But that would not be acceptable to any theist. It's like you have proven the existence of a tenth dimensional particle (or string), and named it god, just for the sake of pissing off all theists and atheists.

But you wouldn't do that, would you?

If there is a conscious being on that level, why would he be limited to 'impersonality' as you put it? The 10th dimension essentially represents a dimension without limits.

There is no way, via logical explanation, to determine if he would be impersonal or not.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Watching that now... and done.

The tenth dimension encloses all paths, from big bang to death, of all possible universes, in all possibility, in one point.

If God were to exist on that level, he would not be the being that we know and love. To the contrary, he would be more impersonal than anything we could imagine.

I'll give you that. But that would not be acceptable to any theist. It's like you have proven the existence of a tenth dimensional particle (or string), and named it god, just for the sake of pissing off all theists and atheists.

But you wouldn't do that, would you?

Well, my definition of God only encompasses existence. It says nothing about any other attributes he has.

 

[WhereIsTheGod]

If there is a conscious being on that level, why would he be limited to 'impersonality' as you put it? The 10th dimension essentially represents a dimension without limits.

There is no way, via logical explanation, to determine if he would be impersonal or not.

He is in a domain where he has access to anything that has ever happened, could ever happen in the past, is happening, could happen in the future, and what could happen right now if you went back in time and changed something. In all universes.

Forget the level of us humans. He's there, serving the PARTICLES. In universes that don't make any sense, in possibilities that don't make any sense (what if Hitler invented the telephone?).

From the theist standpoint, I am one, and god is infinity, From the standpoint that was just shown to me, God is one, and we are zero.

...I may have to start drinking.

 

[Hadouken]

That's just twisting logic.

In the end the whole structure of the arguement is based on: it's impossible to say he doesn't exist, that means he does.

however;
It's also impossible to say he does exist, thus meaning he doesn't exist!?!?

 

[Shredderbeam]

That's just twisting logic.

In the end the whole structure of the arguement is based on: it's impossible to say he doesn't exist, that means he does.

however;
It's also impossible to say he does exist, thus meaning he doesn't exist!?!?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

If God does not exist, then his existence is impossible. But obviously, his existence is NOT impossible, so that cannot be the case. The only other alternative is that he exists.