God's Existence logically proved?

[lemondiesel]

Because;
a) time being a product of existence (meaning no time before time)
b) the universe runs on reason

Then the universe was created in an instant via Big Bang, but because it was created in an instant, it surely could end with one. Yet only the powers of the Creator have this ability, therefore it would only be reasonable to assume such a Creator exists.

 

[rossum]

Because;
a) time being a product of existence (meaning no time before time)
b) the universe runs on reason

Then the universe was created in an instant via Big Bang, but because it was created in an instant, it surely could end with one. Yet only the powers of the Creator have this ability, therefore it would only be reasonable to assume such a Creator exists.

Replace “God” with “Krishna” and have another look at your argument.

If it still works then you have a generic argument for some sort of Deist entity or other, but not an argument for the existence of a specific god. If it does not work then you will probably be able to see the flaws in it more easily.

rossum

 

[Mumbles140]

Because;
a) time being a product of existence (meaning no time before time)
b) the universe runs on reason

Then the universe was created in an instant via Big Bang, but because it was created in an instant, it surely could end with one. Yet only the powers of the Creator have this ability, therefore it would only be reasonable to assume such a Creator exists.

You also might have a hard time with non-believers accepting your premises. You may want to find arguments supporting/proving these ideas. Also, if one doesn’t begin by accepting a creator, how does one prove the universe couldn’t end in an instant? Perhaps some cosmic force outside human realm of detection massively implodes, causing a chain reaction where all life is destroyed instantly. Unless you are assuming a creator started the big bang, it doesn’t logically follow that only a creator could ‘undo’ life, and we are back to the issue of belief.

Forgive me for playing Devil’s advocate, but I feel too many good arguments leap over rivers with faith but don’t build bridges of reason for non-believers to follow across.

 

[lemondiesel]

Allow me to try and answer both posts with this set of statements. Please, feel free to critique, approve/disapprove. If I don’t answer your questions, do say so and I will try and address them in a different manner.

1. The Laws of Nature interpret Reality, through the Use of Reason; therefore Reality itself is based and run upon Reason.
2. If (1) is true, then “Knowledge through Reason” is a product of Creation. This “Knowledge” is unknown until it is perceived and interpreted.
3. Because “We” are here to perceive it Now (at this very instant in time), the probability of (at least) one cognitive reasoning being emerging out of Creation is 1.

• We have no other physical universes to compare to and the idea of “multiple universes” is Philosophy, not Science
• One Universe, reality as we know it, created at least one Being capable to interpret through Reason and Understanding
• This also implies the Butterfly Effect

therefore, “We” are derived from the Reason which runs the Universe.

1. But if 2 is true, “Potential Knowledge” must follow same guidelines as time, space, and matter (TSM) because TSM allow for Reason to be used. Yet without 1 being true, then reality would not work as we interpret; implying that without 1 being true, Reality would cease to exist.
2. Prior to TSM, there existed a “plan” for how TSM would “work” if created. If 1 and 2 are correct, then Reason itself existed prior to creation. Also, if 3 is correct, then “We” reflect the Reason which was prior to Creation.

 

[reggieM]

1. The Laws of Nature interpret Reality, through the Use of Reason; therefore Reality itself is based and run upon Reason.

The Laws of Nature are constructs that emerged from rational minds - so nature conforms to reason and can be accurately interpreted by reason. The only known source of ordered laws which govern precise and measurable functions is Reason. We observe human reason producing similar (but less so) organized, complex systems with rules and laws. Therefore, since there is no other known source for that kind of system, then it is highly probable that the universe is the product of Reason also.

1. If (1) is true, then “Knowledge through Reason” is a product of Creation. This “Knowledge” is unknown until it is perceived and interpreted.

That sounds right to me. The information contained in the system needs a sender, a decoder/interpreter and a receiver. Coded information (in the form of mathematically consistent natural laws, for example) carry with them this “purpose” – their meaning is intended for a receiver.

1. Because “We” are here to perceive it Now (at this very instant in time), the probability of (at least) one cognitive reasoning being emerging out of Creation is 1.
   therefore, “We” are derived from the Reason which runs the Universe.

Given that the reason that runs the universe corresponds with human reason, and it pre-dates human reason, then that seems like a good inference.

 

[honestquestions]

Because;
a) time being a product of existence (meaning no time before time)
b) the universe runs on reason

Then the universe was created in an instant via Big Bang, but because it was created in an instant, it surely could end with one. Yet only the powers of the Creator have this ability, therefore it would only be reasonable to assume such a Creator exists.

Who created the creator?
If the creator doesn’t need a creator how does the idea of something always being here differ?
Are you currently a believer? If so, just give what evidence made you believe so rather than create a new argument - surely it should be objective so why create another difficult argument as if the one you believe in isn’t good enough, and if it isn’t good enough why do you believe it?

If there isn’t a good argument for a God, shouldn’t we uphold the proper position of I don’t know at this time? Doesn’t humankind have a history of believing in the supernatural for currently unknown phenomenon at the time, such as doing rain dances, worshiping the sun for heat, and not understanding how rainbows and how the wonderful snowflake ‘design’ came about?

 

[lemondiesel]

Who created the creator?
If the creator doesn’t need a creator how does the idea of something always being here differ?

The Creator does not need to be created, for He transcends the creation. Only a Being outside of Existence itself has the Power to create.

 

[honestquestions]

The Creator does not need to be created, for He transcends the creation. Only a Being outside of Existence itself has the Power to create.

It’s a logical fallacy. You simply are creating your own definition of something which does not need creation. Then the beginning matter did not need creation and it could be giving the same definition. Shouldn’t we accept that we don’t know at this time given the examples I showed of ignorant humanity over previous time?

 

[reggieM]

It’s a logical fallacy. You simply are creating your own definition of something which does not need creation. Then the beginning matter did not need creation and it could be giving the same definition. Shouldn’t we accept that we don’t know at this time given the examples I showed of ignorant humanity over previous time?

You’re denying the possibility that a non-contingent being can exist. That’s what is illogical and irrational here.

Matter is a contingent substance, since it is dependent on things outside of itself to exist. So, your example doesn’t work. It does not provide an explanation, but merely asserts something which does not follow logically.

The only logical conclusion one can reach to the question of the origin of contingent beings is that there is a non-contingent being, which is Being itself.

 

[rossum]

You’re denying the possibility that a non-contingent being can exist. That’s what is illogical and irrational here.

Possibility is not proof. It is possible that the universe was created last Thursday, complete with the perfect appearance of great age.

rossum

 

[honestquestions]

You’re denying the possibility that a non-contingent being can exist. That’s what is illogical and irrational here.

Matter is a contingent substance, since it is dependent on things outside of itself to exist. So, your example doesn’t work. It does not provide an explanation, but merely asserts something which does not follow logically.

The only logical conclusion one can reach to the question of the origin of contingent beings is that there is a non-contingent being, which is Being itself.

What is a non-contigent being? I mean how broad is the term? I’m curious if you are thinking that it would have to be a human like us, and if so, that certainly seems like it would be thought up by man. Most religious gods tend to look the same as the people who believe in them. Given the vast amount of species on this planet alone, some people think of God as simply the universe or the laws of it, because at this time of knowledge, it is what it is.

 

[lemondiesel]

Possibility is not proof. It is possible that the universe was created last Thursday, complete with the perfect appearance of great age.

rossum

Could you illustrate for me in dummy terms?

This seems like a very deep statement which I would enjoy pondering over.

 

[reggieM]

Possibility is not proof.

Actually, possibility is proof in this case – in the same way impossibility is proof. The solution to the problem is that since a non-contingent being is possible, then it necessarily must exist. Out of an infinite string of events, anything that is truly a possibility must necessarily already be realized.

 

[reggieM]

What is a non-contigent being? I mean how broad is the term?

The term is actually quite narrow and can only describe a single, unique Being.

I’m curious if you are thinking that it would have to be a human like us, and if so, that certainly seems like it would be thought up by man.

No - you’ve already mentioned several contingencies. That would not work.

Most religious gods tend to look the same as the people who believe in them.

I hadn’t seen that idea before. Going back to lemondeisel’s point, he’s referring to the state of existence before time and space existed. That’s the challenge for one’s imagination. It goes far beyond what something looks like in temporal terms.

Given the vast amount of species on this planet alone, some people think of God as simply the universe or the laws of it, because at this time of knowledge, it is what it is.

This argument is pointing to the rationality or Reason found in the universe – and found in human beings.

 

[rossum]

Could you illustrate for me in dummy terms?

This seems like a very deep statement which I would enjoy pondering over.

Start with Last Thursdayism.

The act of creation is often attributed to someone’s cat. Her Theofelinity created the world last Thursday. All the signs of age were created at the same instant. Your memories of last Wednesday are actually artefacts in you brain created last Thursday rather than real memories of real events. Shakespeare never existed, all the records and evidence of his life was created last Thursday. Since Her Theofelinity is so powerful and has such great attention to detail, there was no inconsistent evidence at all created last Thursday, it all fits together seamlessly to give the appearance, but not the reality, of a much older world.

As an adjunct to Last Thursdayism, it should be obvious that the true purpose of humanity is to manufacture, distribute and open tins of catfood for our feline overlords.

More formally it is known as the Omphalos hypothesis.

rossum

 

[CatSci]

a) time being a product of existence (meaning no time before time)
b) the universe runs on reason

Niether of these premises make sense to me.

Time is a property of the universe, like space. “Before time” is a nonsensical phrase because you have to have time with which to be before in. There was no “point in time” where the universe did not exist. The universe exists at the “first point” and there is no point before that.

For b). I don’t know what “runs on reason” means…

 

[lemondiesel]

Niether of these premises make sense to me.

Time is a property of the universe, like space. “Before time” is a nonsensical phrase because you have to have time with which to be before in. There was no “point in time” where the universe did not exist. The universe exists at the “first point” and there is no point before that.

For b). I don’t know what “runs on reason” means…

I mention this in another thread.

the Universe is run on Laws, but more important Reason. Everything happens for a Reason, literally. Once something happens, at any moment in time, it happened. (In other words, “Once something happens it already happened.” ) The most important Law of the Universe is that Time never stops flowing. Once something happens you can never go back. (unless you imagine it, or record it…boring)

There must be some plane of Existence which defines why such Law’s exist. They exist on Reason and Logic. But what makes Reason and Logic exist? The Universe? Could the Universe and the Law’s exist separately? Does Reason exist because the Universe exists, or does the Universe exist because Reason exists?These are pretty standard questions.

 

[CatSci]

I mention this in another thread.

Not everything happens for a reason…

In Brownian Motion, the magnitude and direction of any particular step has no reason behind it.

In radioactive decay, which particular atom is the next one to decay doesn’t happen for any particular reason.

In DNA replication, when and where a particular mutation happens doesn’t happen for a reason.

 

[lemondiesel]

In DNA replication, when and where a particular mutation happens doesn’t happen for a reason.

Yes, but if this mutation benefits its organism, then it happened for a particular Reason, which was enabling the organism for better adaptation.

 

[vz71]

Not everything happens for a reason…

In Brownian Motion, the magnitude and direction of any particular step has no reason behind it.

That we can measure.

In radioactive decay, which particular atom is the next one to decay doesn’t happen for any particular reason.

None that we know of.

In DNA replication, when and where a particular mutation happens doesn’t happen for a reason.

That we can determine.

Do not confuse our inability to measure or come up with an answer with the non-existence of an answer.