A New Proof for the Existence of God

[Nihilist]

Here’s a new proof I’d like to share:

1. Logic exists everywhere in the universe.
2. Logic is thought.
3. Thought only comes from a mind.
   Therefore, a mind created the universe.

Premise #2 could use some explanation, so I’ll add the following:
Logic, in its various forms (including mathematics) has been something we discover, not something invented by man. It is not matter or energy. It does not require any dimensions in order to exist, and can exist outside the universe. What else is left for it to be, except thought?

I sense what you are trying to say (vaguely), but don’t think the argument stands.

Premise 1 is wrong, or at least ambiguous, and arguably also technically meaningless.

How is logic ‘everywhere’? For one thing, if it is ‘thought’, it is in the mind of a thinking subject (in so far as though has a location). It’s like saying “Mathematics is everywhere”. No- to be precise, “Mathematics can be applied anywhere”. But neither mathematics of logic ‘is’ everywhere.

You need to define what precisely you mean by logic. Only then can the argument make sense.

 

[inocente]

The universe is defined as all matter, energy and space-time. Given the Big Bang was the initial moment of the universe, (energy, matter and space-time) how could matter create itself if it didn’t exist prior to itself? In fact, there was no “prior” space-time in which matter could have resided to create itself.

The question to be asked is whether ideas that minds have can be efficaciously causal. As thinking beings, humans continually have ideas and act on the basis of those ideas to form or in-form reality around us. Computer hardware and software are examples of logic (if-then sequencing) being embodied in a way that is causally effective.

If something like Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics is correct and informing the potential of matter is what makes physical things actual, then the actualizing power of Actus Purus (Pure or Fullness of Actuality) is what brings all matter, energy and space-time into existence by sharing actuality with potentiality (prime matter.)

Causality is an aspect and subset of logical sequencing.

If x, then y.
x
Therefore, y

Creating something is simply embodying the above sequence in the sense of providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for x which, then, brings about y.

The interesting thing about the logic of “If x, then y,” is that it need not be causal in a chronologically sequential mode. x merely has to obtain for y to be per se. The sequence does not need time to be true.

The important question is, Why does x entail (or bring about) y?

That question will never be answered without getting beyond the curtain of appearance to what lies behind - there is no other explanatory candidate except the Mind of God. There is not even another discernible possibility. “It’s a “brute fact” about matter” doesn’t cut explanatory muster - it merely surrenders to a “gap” type of response that atheists are so fond of chastising theists for committing.

See “Can you Explain Something by Appealing to a "Brute Fact.”

I’m not arguing that matter created the universe, I substituted “matter” for “thought” to show that this form of argument is false. Time exists everywhere in the universe, therefore time created the universe. Space exists everywhere in the universe, therefore space created the universe. The argument doesn’t follow.

Aristotelian physics is well wrong, it’s fairytale physics. It makes false predictions all over the shop. It is so dreadfully poor that a lot of it is known as not even wrong. It says daft things like the earth is stationary and the stars move around it embedded in invisible spheres.

Confusing if-x-then-y with physical cause and effect is to confuse a priori and a posteriori reasoning. For instance if-bachelor-then-unmarried tells us nothing of the real world. Evaluating an expression left to right doesn’t make it into cause and effect, it just says bachelor means unmarried.

Whereas it is purely experience which leads us to believe that there are causes and effects, and that effects follow causes. We have no means of knowing whether that’s true outside the universe.

I’m unclear about what all these so-called proofs of God are supposed to achieve. They can’t be aimed at the average atheist, who is surely more likely to think that theists are clutching at straws. Paul said we live by faith, not by sight. Apparently not.

 

[Oreoracle]

So the fact that 1+1=2 wasn’t true until man *invented *it? I have to disagree, mathematical laws, which physics is based on, have been around long before man came along to realize them.

1+1 didn’t equal 2 until humans decided to define 2 in such a way. Notice that 1+1=0 in the zero ring.

It’s a bit like asking whether a particular word has always had a certain definition. A given interpretation of a word may have always implied certain things (logical implications are eternal), but frankly it seems confusing to insist that those interpretations have always existed, floating around in nothingness awaiting their discovery by humans. Math is a tool, and the extent to which it coincides with reality depends on how its concepts are defined.

 

[Skeptic92]

Aristotelian physics is well wrong, it’s fairytale physics. It makes false predictions all over the shop. It is so dreadfully poor that a lot of it is known as not even wrong. It says daft things like the earth is stationary and the stars move around it embedded in invisible spheres.

Confusing if-x-then-y with physical cause and effect is to confuse a priori and a posteriori reasoning. For instance if-bachelor-then-unmarried tells us nothing of the real world. Evaluating an expression left to right doesn’t make it into cause and effect, it just says bachelor means unmarried.

Whereas it is purely experience which leads us to believe that there are causes and effects, and that effects follow causes. We have no means of knowing whether that’s true outside the universe.

The point of Aristotelian Physics; that refutes Aristotelian Metaphysics (Epistemology & Ontology) how exactly?

To the point about causation; the regularity thesis of causation has 0 explanatory power, therefore it can be rejected in favour of theories of causation that actually have explanatory power. Such as the “powers” of Mumford; which is roughly equal to the idea of powers of Aristotelian-Scholastic Philosophy, based on the distinction of act and potency.

Your appeal to experience to refute deductive reasoning is nothing more than special pleading. As it can be converted into the form that “reality is intelligible, up until a certain point whereas then it becomes, even in principle, unintelligible”, which is classic special pleading and fallacious reasoning.

Proofs of the Existence of God are not aimed at the average Atheist; they are aimed at the Philosopher, and the Theologian makes use of these arguments in Dogmatic Theology.

 

[Nihilist]

1+1 didn’t equal 2 until humans decided to define 2 in such a way. Notice that 1+1=0 in the zero ring.

It’s a bit like asking whether a particular word has always had a certain definition. A given interpretation of a word may have always implied certain things (logical implications are eternal), but frankly it seems confusing to insist that those interpretations have always existed, floating around in nothingness awaiting their discovery by humans. Math is a tool, and the extent to which it coincides with reality depends on how its concepts are defined.

Yes, it’s obvious that ‘mathematical rules’ did not exist until maths exist. The same with logical rules- which are, after all, simple a matter of syntax. Things which are ‘necessarily true’ or ‘true, by definition’, are also ‘true as a result of definition’. Definition is a matter of language, not fact.

In the absense of any thinking subject, it is not meaningful to describe anything as logical either logical or illogical.

I think there is a lot to be said for thinking of God as somehow the transcendent source of logic, language and mathematics. But proving it to someone who doesn’t believe in God- how could it be done?

 

[Peter_Plato]

1+1 didn’t equal 2 until humans decided to define 2 in such a way. Notice that 1+1=0 in the zero ring.

So birds don’t really have two wings and scutigera coleoptrata don’t really have 30 (or so) legs? Human methods of quantifying reality, in effect, have nothing to do with reality because these methods are mere conventions, then?

You can believe that if you wish, but that insistence seems more delusional than claiming 1+1 does equal two in reality, not merely by human convention.

It’s a bit like asking whether a particular word has always had a certain definition. A given interpretation of a word may have always implied certain things (logical implications are eternal), but frankly it seems confusing to insist that those interpretations have always existed, floating around in nothingness awaiting their discovery by humans. Math is a tool, and the extent to which it coincides with reality depends on how its concepts are defined.

Interesting that “those interpretations” become associated with “floating around in nothingness” even though you admit there is an external reality “floating around” out there. Why not just admit “those interpretations” are “floating around” in external reality rather than “nothingness?” There is, after all, SOMETHING and not “nothingness” out there for those interpretations to BE associated or coincide with, right?

It seems a tad incoherent to insist reality does exist but that we can’t pin our conventions to it in any meaningful way and must, therefore, resign ourselves to a belief that our conventions must be relegated to a state of “floating around in nothingness.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Incorrect, you get the initiator of all creation if you are a Deist. The appearance of the universe is highly subjective.

How do you know that it isn’t merely the “appearance of the universe,” but the REALITY of the universe that is highly subjective. It seems that “objectivity” is a subjectively imposed layer, a kind of pretentious addition onto reality imposed by those who don’t want to admit their own subjective pretensions.

 

[Skeptic92]

Yes, it’s obvious that ‘mathematical rules’ did not exist until maths exist. The same with logical rules- which are, after all, simple a matter of syntax. Things which are ‘necessarily true’ or ‘true, by definition’, are also ‘true as a result of definition’. Definition is a matter of language, not fact.

In the absense of any thinking subject, it is not meaningful to describe anything as logical either logical or illogical.

So our sensory and rational powers do not give us reliable and true information about the world? At all?

I do not know why this keeps being missed; but I’ve already fixed the terminology used, the OPs implied meaning would be “intelligible”. The argument in this form doesn’t follow; but there are a few Arguments from Intelligibility out there that I’ve heard are valid and sound. I’d just need to go read them and think about them for a bit before I could render my own verdict.

Why are we debating subjectivity and objectivity? Did someone go down the hardcore Cartesian root? These notions of “objectivity” and “subjectivity” appear to be slightly contrived, the distinction between them certainly doesn’t seem to be a major one or maybe not even a real one.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Paul said we live by faith, not by sight. Apparently not.

And Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see…" (John 9:39)

Apparently we ARE to live by sight and not travel blindly. Jesus did give sight to the blind, after all.

Yet (you claim) he did not, and we are still without sight.

 

[inocente]

The point of Aristotelian Physics; that refutes Aristotelian Metaphysics (Epistemology & Ontology) how exactly?

The concepts of potentiality, actuality and prime matter referred to in the post I was responding to, first appear in Aristotle’s physics. If you absolve them from the discredited physical role then they can not apply to the OP.

To the point about causation; the regularity thesis of causation has 0 explanatory power, therefore it can be rejected in favour of theories of causation that actually have explanatory power. Such as the “powers” of Mumford; which is roughly equal to the idea of powers of Aristotelian-Scholastic Philosophy, based on the distinction of act and potency.

The problem with pop philosophy is I google “mumford powers”, look at the first review that comes up, and not only does it say that his argument is based on perception (so my critique stands), but there are further substantive issues.

academia.edu/2068612/Review_of_Mumford_and_Anjums_Getting_Causes_From_Powers_

Your appeal to experience to refute deductive reasoning is nothing more than special pleading.

I didn’t.

Proofs of the Existence of God are not aimed at the average Atheist; they are aimed at the Philosopher, and the Theologian makes use of these arguments in Dogmatic Theology

By capitalizing, do you mean aimed only at professional philosophers? Or aimed at one particular philosopher? I wonder why the arguments get published outside of the elite to us unwashed then. Most curious.

 

[inocente]

1+1 didn’t equal 2 until humans decided to define 2 in such a way. Notice that 1+1=0 in the zero ring.

So birds don’t really have two wings and scutigera coleoptrata don’t really have 30 (or so) legs?

Peter, this makes it appear that you don’t know the difference between a priori and a posteriori, between deduction and induction, between analytic and synthetic. I’m guessing you do, just saying it makes it look like you don’t.

 

[inocente]

And Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see…" (John 9:39)

Apparently we ARE to live by sight and not travel blindly. Jesus did give sight to the blind, after all.

Yet (you claim) he did not, and we are still without sight.

This is a most clever play on words but fails miserably as Jesus never gave us any of the thousand and one purported logical proofs for the existence of God. The guy instead believes by experiencing Jesus.

John did not write “For God so loved the world that he gave us logical arguments for His existence, so that everyone who believes them may not perish but may have eternal life.

 

[Skeptic92]

The concepts of potentiality, actuality and prime matter referred to in the post I was responding to, first appear in Aristotle’s physics. If you absolve them from the discredited physical role then they can not apply to the OP.

The problem with pop philosophy is I google “mumford powers”, look at the first review that comes up, and not only does it say that his argument is based on perception (so my critique stands), but there are further substantive issues.

academia.edu/2068612/Review_of_Mumford_and_Anjums_Getting_Causes_From_Powers_

I didn’t.

By capitalizing, do you mean aimed only at professional philosophers? Or aimed at one particular philosopher? I wonder why the arguments get published outside of the elite to us unwashed then. Most curious.

The concepts of Act and potency are metaphysical concepts, the updated Philosophy of Science and Nature can be found here

That review is funny; it’s critique is that “it’s not Humean enough”, whilst Mumford (and others, in so many places) directly refute the Humean notion of causation through the book. You may want to find a better review.

What is your critique about perception? The one where you postulate that the Universe could be a “brute fact”? That is; without cause or explanation. Brute facts cause us to fall into an awkward epistemic and metaphysical position; because brute facts are not just a concept of epistemic weakness, but an ontological reality. As the universe then would not be “caused by nothing” as nihilo nihil fit. The universe would simply be. This is inexplicable, and completely unintelligible. Appears to throw doubt onto the reliability of our sensory and rational powers.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is a most clever play on words but fails miserably as Jesus never gave us any of the thousand and one purported logical proofs for the existence of God. The guy instead believes by experiencing Jesus.

Experiencing Jesus is not a logical proof for the existence of God?

Only those who have the experience will see the proof.

So the only way to prove to others the proof is there is to urge them to experience it.

As Pascal did, by urging the willing suspension of disbelief.

 

[Oreoracle]

Yes, it’s obvious that ‘mathematical rules’ did not exist until maths exist. The same with logical rules- which are, after all, simple a matter of syntax. Things which are ‘necessarily true’ or ‘true, by definition’, are also ‘true as a result of definition’. Definition is a matter of language, not fact.

Exactly. One could argue that a particular interpretation of truth or choice of definitions is more intuitive than others, but ultimately what is “correct” is a matter of convention. Which interpretations are useful, on the other hand, is easier to see.

So birds don’t really have two wings and scutigera coleoptrata don’t really have 30 (or so) legs?

You’re conflating mathematical models with the reality they represent. If we changed our mathematics, reality would remain unscathed, but the manner in which we describe it would change. I’m just arguing that there is no “correct” way to describe it. Different models are used for different purposes. That being said, math itself is not hindered by reality’s constraints at all.

Furthermore, it is backwards to think that math forces reality to be a certain way. Reality isn’t perfect for our math, our math is perfect for reality, because we designed it with reality in mind. In fact, just in case anyone ever accuses me of being a hardcore naturalist, I will admit right here that it’s possible that the “true” laws of physics aren’t strictly mathematical, as there’s no obvious a priori reason for that to be so. The success of math suggests that they may be, but that’s no guarantee.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Induction involves using examples or statistical data to reach a probabilistic conclusion. To reach a conclusion based on statistics, one needs a sample of the population about which one is making claims. We have never observed lawgivers creating physical laws, so we cannot induce that physical laws necessitate lawgivers.

You don’t need a sample of lawgivers. All you need is a sample of laws. Laws are everywhere in the universe. The is no chaos. Laws rule. It is reasonable to assume a lawgiver, as Einstein did.

Also, we never observed the Big Bang, but we can reasonably infer, based on observations of the expanding universe, that it occurred.

Induction rules over deduction. Statistics be damned. I don’t require a lawgiver for each law.

One will suffice, as Einstein suggested based on Ockham’s Razor.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” Albert Einstein

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The appearance of the universe is highly subjective.

Sez you!

 

[Oreoracle]

You don’t need a sample of lawgivers. All you need is a sample of laws. Laws are everywhere in the universe. The is no chaos. Laws rule. It is reasonable to assume a lawgiver, as Einstein did.

All you are doing is inducing that there are laws, which is a conclusion I certainly don’t dispute.

In order to induce that laws have lawgivers, you would need a sample of laws that are known to have lawgivers. Since we don’t have such data in the case of physical laws, we have no grounds on which to induce anything of the sort.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In order to induce that laws have lawgivers, you would need a sample of laws that are known to have lawgivers. Since we don’t have such data in the case of physical laws, we have no grounds on which to induce anything of the sort.

Where would the laws come from if there is no lawgiver?

Why is there not chaos rather than laws?

Why discount the experience nature has given us … to have laws and lawgivers?

Does that count for nothing?

 

[Oreoracle]

Where would the laws come from if there is no lawgiver?

As I said, “laws” is an unfortunate choice of terminology. A law in science is just a relationship between phenomena, usually a quantitative one. Thus the term doesn’t imply legislators as human laws do. It isn’t obvious that just because phenomena have relationships, a being must have intentionally designed the phenomena to behave that way.

Why is there not chaos rather than laws?

I’ve actually given this a good deal of thought. It’s conceivable (not likely, but conceivable) that the universe doesn’t abide by rules, but only appears to do so by coincidence. Because science is provisional in nature, the laws of physics advanced by it would become increasingly unwieldy each time the universe throws us a curve ball and we have to account for its behavior. We’ve already had to demote the deterministic laws of Relativity to the probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics, for example.

To summarize, I’m trying to say that it may be that the universe only appears to have laws because we attempt to understand it, and we can only understand something if it obeys laws.