Logical proof that God exists

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.

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.

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.

6). God exists.

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

Discuss.
________________

*EDIT* 1/25/08
________________

Following in-depth thought, I have come to the conclusion that my logic is not valid.

Its aim was to prove the existence of a God whose only attribute was existence, nothing more. However, existence is not an attribute.

Consider the elephant. It is large (relative to humans), eats vegetation, has four legs, and has ivory tusks. You all know what it is, and could probably recognize that it was an elephant from a number of attributes that it has.

Now, to say that an elephant exists is not to say that existence is an attribute of the elephant. To say that an elephant exists is to say that there are "x's" such that "x is an elephant" is true. Basically, it is to say that there are objects in the world to which the description summarized in the word "elephant" applies.

The same applies to non-existing entities. If we think of fairies, we do not deny them an attribute by saying that they do not exist. Instead, we assert that there are no instances of the concept of fairies.

Thus, my logic was incorrect, though not for the reasons that most of you were stating.

If I was unclear, I will be happy to clarify.

 

that whole thing makes no sense.

 

Then think about it, ask questions, and use your brain.

 

This part makes no sense, thus the whole argument falls apart.

 

Why does it make no sense?

 

That part makes complete sense, If you cannot understand it from your point of view, take it from the point of someone else, change the way your brain works.

Let me put it this way

If He does not exist, then He cannot exist, if you as a person do not exist, can you do something? No you can't because you dont exist. Simple.

 

That's not what is meant. What is meant is that if God does not exist, it is impossible for him to ever have existed.

 

You're an athiest, and you're trying to prove that God exists.

where the fuck is the logic in that?

 

The ad hominem attack is not a logical one. It matters not who presents the arguments, as long as their logic is valid.

 

the way the words are. its like if god doesnt exist then he must exist that is like going back to square 1 right?

 

After re-reading it, I understand what you meant to say, but I just explained it wrong, but is this not very obvious?

I mean I guess some people could say God has died, or you killed God, like in that new movie the Golden Compass I think it is, where they have to kill God or something?

 

Well, it says that if God does not exist, then he necessarily does not exist. What that means is that if God does not exist, it is impossible for him to exist, and the situation could never have arisen for him to exist.

 

1. You are an Athiest.

By the definition, you don't believe in any omnipotent/present/scient being (which people of religions believing such usually deem God) or anything of the like. You basically believe that when we die, the lights turn out forever. End of story.

2. From the perspective of an Athiest, God does not exist.

As stated above. You do not believe that god exists. It is pretty fucking illogical for you to try to prove his existence, physically or logically, because you don't fucking think he's real

Your logic went out the window about here

 

Ahhh took 2 trys but I got it. At first, I didn't understand it because I thought your title said Logical proof that God does not exist so I was confused =P

Why is that if he can exist, he has to exist and if he doesn't exist, he cannot exist? In the first statement you're forcing him to exist by saying it's his duty/obligation. In the 2nd statement, you're saying he can't exist. As in, there's no way possible for him to exist even if he tries (figure of speech; he can't try if he doesn't exist)




Edit: and Xtern, shut up. Don't argue with him if it made sence to everyone else and not you -.-

 

Yet the logic of my argument remains just as valid as before.

No, no, I think you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that if he DOES exist, it is impossible for him NOT TO exist. If he DOES NOT exist, it is IMPOSSIBLE for him to exist.

 

I'm not even gonna try arguing with you shredder since I know you will win
I just wanna say that I disagree.

 

why should one even consider your argument considering it's coming from the mind of someone who lives in a godless world?

 

Just because you can use the word fucking is it really necessary?

Why is it illogical to try to prove the existance of something, because your position says not to?

For the purpose of discussion shouldn't be this discussed? because he put something done has nothing to do with what he believes. Thats like me going to a Church confrence and asking them to prove that evolution does not exist, it might not be for my own benifit, but for the benefit of all the either that believe what I believe to understand why I believe it, He could go somewhere with this, to prove that God doesnt not exist, think outside the box..


Also just because you dont think something is real, doesn't mean it is not, by the why you have spoken, it seems as if you have accepted athiesm, and closed all other doors that try to tell you otherwise and are not even willing to prove your point.

because one does not live in the view he stated, it should not be even considered at all? sounds like you have nothing against what hes stated, so it must be right and because you don't know much about your own view you try to disregard it?

what he does this, Says im Thiest for the next 30 seconds, repost all of it, then goes back to athiesm is that alright with you?

then discuss with me? I'm obviously not as smart, why do you disagree?

 

To the contrary, i'm catholic.

Also, I'm having fun with this, and i will use the word fucking whenever i please. Thank you.

 

Well, I won't necessarily win. It's not guaranteed, you know.

Because the logic of an argument does not vary depending on who argues it.