Logical proof of god.

Post Reply New Topic

I have been looking for a website that supports
the belief of god using logic. This website comes
close.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=0xXgsndwxD4[/youtube]

There are no air tight logical proofs that God exists. Your example is bogus.

ruveyn

If reasoning people can learn anything from religion, it is to turn away from the worship of idols, to ignore the teachings of doomsday prophets, and to laugh at arbitrary dogma. Religion relies on arbitrary dogma and subjective faith. The goal of religion is to impose conformity and arbitrary doctrine on a fearful and ignorant public through rhetorical arguments, implied threats, and outright persecution.

a. Absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt.
b. There is no valid empirical evidence for the existence of God
: : It is reasonable to doubt the existence of God; and, by virtue of logic, belief in the existence of God is an unreasonable state of mind.

Validity =/= Truth. A lot of what people call fact are merely their own interpretations of fact. Logic itself doesn't prove that something's true, it only proves that a statement is valid. Let's not pretend our axioms don't support our logic either.

I'd always heard "premise" instead of "statement".

Rhetoric is great for winning an argument, but lousy for proving reality.

I'm sure glad our legal system doesn't operate like that.
For an argument for god I'd have to go by the preponderance of the evidence.
"The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true."

I see a universe, came from somewhere. Science doesn't have a clue without resorting to infinities. Theology posits an impossibility also. A being of ultimate existence, the metaphorical existence by it's very nature argument.

The universe is finite, it was born and it will die. The universe therefor cannot exist due to it's very nature. If science has a better argument without resorting to infinite regressions (which ignores the fact that the universe can't by it's very nature exist infinitely) I'll listen, but so far that's the best science has to offer and I'm not in the market for an all you can eat buffet. I'm fat enough already.

Since the site you linked is youtube. And youtube is 99% crud. You have just picked one of those websites whose mere existence proves there is no God.

Now that's well played. Props.

The moment you develop a proof of God is the moment that God ceases to exist.

God is about faith.

But how do you know you're on the right track? Most people who believe in something--anything--do so because they have good reasons. The first disciples followed Jesus were intrigued by His teachings but didn't necessarily trust that He is the Son of God. It was when Jesus performed miracles that observers decided He was either possessed by demons or that He really was the Messiah.

The Jews didn't need a proof for God's existence since God's personal interaction with man was a significant part of their history. Their ancestors had "seen God" in a sense and recorded their experiences. They themselves were the evidence, so they had plenty of REASON to believe. God's existence is a firmly established fact. He doesn't depend on "proof" or faith for His existence.

What God does NOT do is perform silly magic tricks to prove Himself to arrogant doubters who likely aren't going to believe anyway. Neither is God going to force anyone to believe. Even the Israelites in the Exodus found ways to turn against God. The apostle Paul's experience can easily be explained away as a stroke. The role faith plays in Christian experience is believing that God is God when He shows up. God doesn't expect us to believe anything without a good reason.

In a sense, secular materialism is just another kind of faith. The main difference is not the evidence but rather the alternative conclusions based on the opposite interpretation of the data. When I look out my window, I see God's creation. Someone else might see the (uncaused) current end result of the Big Bang. Both are reasoned conclusions from evidence. Faith is choosing to believe one over the other.

Um, yes, I kind of agree, but I am not a secular materialism, and I find your post offensive.

Fine, whatever, I cannot prove the non-existence of God, but what the hell is God anyway? We have a million different religions all claiming a different version of God?

As for people who develop a higher power on their own without the influence of a Church, I have no problem.

What I have problem with is systematic brainwashing.

If a person sees God, are they religious or schizophrenic? How does one know the difference?

Whatever makes you happy.

Which is why I consider the whole "Logic = Truth" thing rhetoric. It's what I call an appeal to intellectualization.

The video is essentially a description of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Dr Wiliam Lane Craig is its most famous compemporary proponent. If you are looking for logical arguments for theism, a university companion on natural theology would be a great place to start. A book like Reasonable Faith is also a good introduction. My favorite introductory work on the subject is Pope Benedict XVI's introduction to Christianity.

That's a good question.

My thoughts on that is it would be quite obvious. Paul was already predisposed to believing in God, having grown up a pious Jew. While he persecuted Christians, he probably honestly thought he was doing God's will. So when the ascended Jesus confronted him, he instantly acknowledged that He was Lord.

Paul COULD have made up excuses for the experience, though, since insanity and other mental abnormalities were not unknown to people of that time--they just didn't have advanced imaging to help verify the cause of those abnormalities.

Of course, it's also possible that Paul actually had suffered a stroke, hallucinated, and God used the hallucination to "make a believer" (speaking figuratively here, not literally) of Paul. But Paul also came under the care of other Christians who confirmed his experience through healing his blindness. If it had ONLY been a hallucination and the resulting blindness permanent, then no amount of "faith healing" could have fixed it. Only if the experience had been directly from God could those circumstances have happened. Now, of course, Jesus and His disciples regularly healed disabled people and could have healed Paul even if he hadn't gotten a message from the risen Savior. What made Paul special was that he acknowledged the source of that message and didn't try to make excuses.

As to knowing the difference in a modern context... Well, you hear all the time about moms going crazy and drowning their kids in the bathtub after "hearing the voice of God" or thinking their toddler is the anti-Christ. If someone is KNOWN to be a schizophrenic, that person can be shown that parts of reality as they understand it are delusions and false. If you KNOW that you are mentally impaired, you can reasonably doubt your experiences and perhaps come up with ways of testing them to make sure they are real. Someone who is a Christian believer ought to know the Bible enough to know that murdering innocent children is inconsistent with anything God would tell believers to do. One might conclude either mental illness or a demonic force falsely claiming to be God. Either way, experiences can pass or fail a truth test based on what is known about God's nature and/or Christ's teachings.

Suppose your toddler really is the anti-Christ. The Bible describes the coming of the anti-Christ as an inevitability, so trying to kill him isn't going to work. The fact that you could kill him and very much want to is probably an indication that he's not the anti-Christ. Even the anti-Christ is a human being created in the image of God and no less deserving of human rights as anyone else. An apparent voice from the next world telling you to kill a baby makes no sense presupposing a Christian world view.

I'm not sure why you were offended. I'm not accusing anyone of being a materialist--just showing how opposing sides draw opposing conclusions.

That is why I like Buddhism, since it is an atheist religion, the dogma seems limited to a "do as much as you are willing to do" sort of deal and most importantly they promote not having material wealth. It will be very hard for wealth to corrupt Buddhism since acquiring wealth is anathema to the religion. They don't even worship the Buddha since worshipping idols is also something frowned upon, he is simply a guide.

Also the only real problem I have with any proof that God exists is that humans invented God. Tell an ancient Egyptian there is only one God and he will call you crazy and a heretic or something. Most religions are about faith, you believe something. If someone is brought up with their parents telling them God exists and go to church and stuff, they have every reason to believe.

I guess a better question is what does it mean if God was real? Does that make the bible law? Of course with three major world religions all claiming to believe in the one true God there would be awful wars to see "who was right". Could God sit by and watch people slaughter each other to prove he is their one true God (again)? If he allowed that to happen then does he really have any power?

Better "proof" is never found and people have faith and try to live in harmony than know He is real and push "the truth" onto others. The dark ages were dark for a few reasons and that is one of them.

There are literally hundreds of 'proofs' of God and related truth claims contrived over the centuries, even today. But of course, all of these are of human intellectual origin, just as the theological dogmas and doctrines of religious tradition are. Whether they have anything to do with the reality they pretend remains unknown. . . . for the moment.

There appears to be a new player in the culture wars that looks set to overturn the both the religious and atheist apple carts with a logic that will be hard to refute, for this new proof is testable! I guess you call that 'ultimate' logic?

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence.

Thus 'faith' is the path, the search and discovery of this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, Law, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question?

As a newbie. I not yet allowed to post links, but for anyone interested, just Google: The Final Freedoms.