Is there truly undeniable proof that God exists

[Mike5575]

Hello everyone, I invite people of all religions as well as people of non belief to take part in a debate on weather or not God truly exists, and what proof is there for such belifes.

I think its important to note that although many people do believe in a God, I do not think this is a valid reason to believe it. It seems like a paradox. Hundreds of years ago, I am sure many people chose to believe in religion because so many people believe it. The religions we have today existed for centuries, before the age of science and people knew so little about the world we live in. Now, however we know so much about the world and it should require us to re evalute our position on religion or God. Another thing to consider is that we have a limited understanding of the universe. This leads people to believe in one or two things. One is some people will believe in a god to explain things they don’t know about nature. Another thing though is that since we don’t know so many things about our world, how can we come to the conclusion that there is a God. It boggles my mind though when I try to fathom the universe and the beginning of the universe and time. Scientists know say they know what happened before the big bang. Apparently two universes collided into eachother, and it created the one we live in know. Well that’s great! But what happened before that! God or no God, I doubt we will ever know exactly at one point when everything was created. We couldn’t possibly contemplate this infinite universe with our finite minds. Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking all believed in God, and they say they can prove it through science. The interesting thing about science is that I see it not too different than relgion. Religion is based on faith. So is science. We know things to be how they are because the laws of nature tells us so. Well, what if our understanding on the laws of nature are flawed? What then? We know 2+2=4. Well, what if 2+2=5?

I also know that there are other ways people claim they can prove God’s existence, like philosphy, and even history, but I’m just going to stop typing now, because my fingers are getting tired. LOL. And I’m going to leave the floor to you and please keep it civilized.

-Peace!

 

[tonyrey]

Hi Mike, welcome to the forum! I think the best way to start is to consider what you know for certain. Can you prove you exist? Are you absolutely certain you are thinking? If so that must be the basis for all your knowledge. All the rest - the existence of the universe and even your body - is inferred from your perceptions. No two persons observe physical objects in exactly the same way. We don’t know anything directly except our own thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Would you agree?

 

[Sair]

It’s interesting you should say that both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking claimed they could prove the existence of a god through science - as far as I’m aware (and I may have to do some more reading up on the subject) neither ever stated that they had any verifiable evidence for a god, nor that they firmly believed in one.

Also, to engage serious atheists (I know it can be perceived as a ‘fashionable’ thing these days to say you’re an atheist), it’s important to remember that we’re not only dealing with the existence of a god, but also the extent of said god’s interaction with us. Scientific research has, as has been stated elsewhere on these forums, pushed divine intervention ever further into the background of observed reality (and our observation, verification and measurement of the manifold aspects of our world is the only practical means we have of approaching truth). When asked, I answer that there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a god, but there is ample evidence that leads to the conclusion that the existence or nonexistence of said god(s) is irrelevant to the way we live our lives and the way we experience our world.

 

[Bailey2]

No one knows for certain and if it was certain, there would be no need for faith. You can’t have faith in a fact. There also would not be mystery, which would make life quite boring really. Where would be the purpose and striving if all was explainable and verifiable?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hello everyone, I invite people of all religions as well as people of non belief to take part in a debate on weather or not God truly exists, and what proof is there for such belifes.

a god == who/whatever absolutely determines what can or cannot be.

The God == Who/Whatever absolutely determines all that can or cannot be.

What is there to argue?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well???

 

[TenBobNote]

One the best arguments (proofs)(Besides the New Testament) that I have come across is a debate among an atheist and a believer where the believer conveys the idea that it would be impossible to have a world through countless generations have the same absolute moralities and laws of logic.

I hope you will take the time to read/ watch this it is VERY interesting and thought provoking.

You can watch the whole debate here- youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw&feature=PlayList&p=75F2FF36C0ECC4A2&index=0
You can read the whole debate here - bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

"
*Bahnsen Examines Stein
Bahnsen: Do you believe there are laws of logic then?
Stein: Absolutely.
Bahnsen: Are they universal?
Stein: They are agreed upon by human beings not realizing it is just out in nature.
Bahnsen: Are they simply conventions then?
Stein: They are conventions that are self-verifying.
Bahnsen: Are they sociological laws or laws of thought?
Stein: They are laws of thought which are interpreted by man.
Bahnsen: Are they material in nature?
Stein: How could a law be material?
Bahnsen: That’s the question I’m going to ask you.
Stein: I would say no.
Stein Examines Bahnsen
Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?
Bahnsen: Immaterial.
Stein: What is something that’s immaterial?
Bahnsen: Something not extended in space.
Stein: Can you give me any other example, other than God, that’s immaterial?
Bahnsen: The laws of logic.

At this point the audience erupts in laughter at the irony that Stein, a materialist, is using immaterial laws of logic, something that based on his own criteria for proofs, should not believe in. This point really comes through in the audio of the debate.

Right after the cross examination, Bahnsen moves in for the kill. I want to post most of this next section because here is where he lays out the transcendental argument as it pertains to the laws of logic. After you read this section, you can see how this same argument can be used against those other areas that he outlined in his opening statement; laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes.

“Dr. Stein has mentioned logical binds and logical self-contradictions. He says that he finds that the laws of logic are universal; however, they are conventional in nature. That is not at all acceptable philosophically. If the laws of logic are conventional in nature, then you might have different societies that use different laws of logic.
[snip]
The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological. I would say the laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal; they are invariant, and they are not material in nature. And if they are not that, then I’d like to know, in an atheist universe, how it is possible to have laws in the first place. And secondly, how it is possible to justify those laws?

The laws of logic, you see, are abstract. As abstract entities, which is the appropriate philosophical term, not spiritual - entities that Dr. Stein is speaking of - abstract entities - that is to say, not individual (or universal in character). They are not materialistic. As universal, they are not experienced to be true. There may be experiences where the laws of logic are used, but no one has universal experience. No one has tried every possible instance of the laws of logic.*

As invariant, they don’t fit into what most materialists would tell us about the constantly changing nature of the world. And so, you see, we have a real problem on our hands. Dr. Stein wants to use the laws of logic tonight. I maintain that by so doing he’s borrowing my world view. For you see, in the theistic world view the laws of logic makes sense, because in the theistic world view there can be abstract, universal, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. Within the theistic world view you cannot contradict yourself, because to do so you’re engaging in the nature of lying, and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it. And so, the laws of logic are something Dr. Stein is going to have to explain as an atheist or else relinquish using them.

The transcendental argument for the existence of God, then, which Dr. Stein has yet to touch, and which I don’t believe he can surmount, is that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything. And that’s because in the atheistic world you cannot justify, you cannot account for, laws in general: the laws of thought in particular, laws of nature, cannot account for human life, from the fact that it’s more than electrochemical complexes in depth, and the fact that it’s more than an accident. That is to say, in the atheist conception of the world, there’s really no reason to debate; because in the end, as Dr. Stein has said, all these laws are conventional. All these laws are not really law-like in their nature, they’re just, well, if you’re an atheist and materialist, you’d have to say they’re just something that happens inside the brain."

 

[James_S_Saint]

Wow, that Bahnsen-Stein debate was hard to sit through for me. I think Bahnsen could have done better, but he was obviously in a battle of wits with an unarmed assailant.

If PhD level people do not even know what Logic is and isn’t, then we are in serious trouble. Neither seemed to have ever actually had a serious course concerning the make of Logic. That seems so strange to me. But I guess that would certainly explain a lot of things.

I think our **NowAgnostic **could have done better than Stein.

 

[stenlis]

One the best arguments (proofs)(Besides the New Testament) that I have come across is a debate among an atheist and a believer where the believer conveys the idea that it would be impossible to have a world through countless generations have the same absolute moralities and laws of logic.

I hope you will take the time to read/ watch this it is VERY interesting and thought provoking.

You can watch the whole debate here- youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw&feature=PlayList&p=75F2FF36C0ECC4A2&index=0
You can read the whole debate here - bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

"
*Bahnsen Examines Stein
Bahnsen: Do you believe there are laws of logic then?
Stein: Absolutely.
Bahnsen: Are they universal?
Stein: They are agreed upon by human beings not realizing it is just out in nature.
Bahnsen: Are they simply conventions then?
Stein: They are conventions that are self-verifying.
Bahnsen: Are they sociological laws or laws of thought?
Stein: They are laws of thought which are interpreted by man.
Bahnsen: Are they material in nature?
Stein: How could a law be material?
Bahnsen: That’s the question I’m going to ask you.
Stein: I would say no.
Stein Examines Bahnsen
Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?
Bahnsen: Immaterial.
Stein: What is something that’s immaterial?
Bahnsen: Something not extended in space.
Stein: Can you give me any other example, other than God, that’s immaterial?
Bahnsen: The laws of logic.

At this point the audience erupts in laughter at the irony that Stein, a materialist, is using immaterial laws of logic, something that based on his own criteria for proofs, should not believe in. This point really comes through in the audio of the debate.

Right after the cross examination, Bahnsen moves in for the kill. I want to post most of this next section because here is where he lays out the transcendental argument as it pertains to the laws of logic. After you read this section, you can see how this same argument can be used against those other areas that he outlined in his opening statement; laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes.

“Dr. Stein has mentioned logical binds and logical self-contradictions. He says that he finds that the laws of logic are universal; however, they are conventional in nature. That is not at all acceptable philosophically. If the laws of logic are conventional in nature, then you might have different societies that use different laws of logic.
[snip]
The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological. I would say the laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal; they are invariant, and they are not material in nature. And if they are not that, then I’d like to know, in an atheist universe, how it is possible to have laws in the first place. And secondly, how it is possible to justify those laws?

The laws of logic, you see, are abstract. As abstract entities, which is the appropriate philosophical term, not spiritual - entities that Dr. Stein is speaking of - abstract entities - that is to say, not individual (or universal in character). They are not materialistic. As universal, they are not experienced to be true. There may be experiences where the laws of logic are used, but no one has universal experience. No one has tried every possible instance of the laws of logic.*

As invariant, they don’t fit into what most materialists would tell us about the constantly changing nature of the world. And so, you see, we have a real problem on our hands. Dr. Stein wants to use the laws of logic tonight. I maintain that by so doing he’s borrowing my world view. For you see, in the theistic world view the laws of logic makes sense, because in the theistic world view there can be abstract, universal, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. Within the theistic world view you cannot contradict yourself, because to do so you’re engaging in the nature of lying, and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it. And so, the laws of logic are something Dr. Stein is going to have to explain as an atheist or else relinquish using them.

The transcendental argument for the existence of God, then, which Dr. Stein has yet to touch, and which I don’t believe he can surmount, is that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything. And that’s because in the atheistic world you cannot justify, you cannot account for, laws in general: the laws of thought in particular, laws of nature, cannot account for human life, from the fact that it’s more than electrochemical complexes in depth, and the fact that it’s more than an accident. That is to say, in the atheist conception of the world, there’s really no reason to debate; because in the end, as Dr. Stein has said, all these laws are conventional. All these laws are not really law-like in their nature, they’re just, well, if you’re an atheist and materialist, you’d have to say they’re just something that happens inside the brain."

The transcendedal argument is very complicated and it is designed to confuse you. Not to convince you.

In its core it says - there are these properties of logic which we don’t know where they came from, therefore god did it!

Doesn’t seem any different from the claims by the stone age people, that god does the lightning and thunder because it is so powerful that only an all-powerful being can make it.

 

[hatsoff]

The transcendedal argument is very complicated and it is designed to confuse you. Not to convince you.

In its core it says - there are these properties of logic which we don’t know where they came from, therefore god did it!

Doesn’t seem any different from the claims by the stone age people, that god does the lightning and thunder because it is so powerful that only an all-powerful being can make it.

Quite true. If you look at the Bahnsen-Stein transcript, you will see that Bahnsen never actually presents a deductive or inductive argument with premises and conclusion. Instead, he just rambles on about how atheism supposedly can’t account for the so-called laws of logic. When Stein replied that logic is conventional, Bahnsen sloughed off that response and claimed that Stein had ignored his challenge.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Quite true. If you look at the Bahnsen-Stein transcript, you will see that Bahnsen never actually presents a deductive or inductive argument with premises and conclusion. Instead, he just rambles on about how atheism supposedly can’t account for the so-called laws of logic. When Stein replied that logic is conventional, Bahnsen sloughed off that response and claimed that Stein had ignored his challenge.

Bahnsen was going to present his argument, but Stein’s denial of actual logic would have made his argument pointless (Stein’s as well for that matter).

I didn’t realize that the Atheist movement was being founded on the non-existence of absolute concepts such as logic. That seems like a ridiculous stance to take. It is an utterly indefensible position requiring mindlessness to accept it. IT doesn’t merely support insanity, but requires it.

But that would explain why so many atheists can’t seem to use logic.

And Stein’s argument that “Atheism” MERELY means non-theism is an out-n-out lie. If he wanted to present that the word “atheist” was supposed to mean, in its inception, that an atheist would be merely a non-theist, then he would have an argument. But it is more than clear, especially with Dawkins, that the atheist today definitely means a disbelief, not merely a lack of belief.

It’s hard for me to believe that people are actually taking this stuff seriously.

 

[hatsoff]

Bahnsen was going to present his argument, but Stein’s denial of actual logic

Stein never denied “actual” logic. Rather, he denied Bahnsen’s supernaturalist conception of logic.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Stein never denied “actual” logic. Rather, he denied Bahnsen’s supernaturalist conception of logic.

“Actual Logic” is not a “convention”, but exactly defined. You can redefine the word “logic” perhaps and if he thinks that logic is just a convention, then in effect, he is redefining it.

Logic is entirely based on one principle, “Non-contradiction of Identity” or “What is cannot also be what isn’t”. That actually defines what we have always called logic since the word was coined. It is actually the entire basis of the Hebrew God, although being an atheist, you have no reason to know that.

Aristotle stated 3 fundamental laws of logic. Two of those three are really only corollaries to that one stated above;

1. A != !A
2. A == A
3. A >< !A

But Stein was saying that such is only a convention that different people could accept or not and thus define logic as a different set of laws. He was saying that they are not absolute.

A “supernatural entity” is any eternal principle. A principle is “above (super) nature” in that it governs what nature can or cannot do. Bahnsen and the Bible claim that Nature cannot violate Logic - ever.

So yes, Stein was denying “actual logic” and proposing that perhaps “in some world” logic allows that what is, is also what isn’t (Schrodinger’s Cat).

 

[stenlis]

I didn’t realize that the Atheist movement was being founded on the non-existence of absolute concepts such as logic. That seems like a ridiculous stance to take. It is an utterly indefensible position requiring mindlessness to accept it. IT doesn’t merely support insanity, but requires it.

Then you misunderstand the whole point. The thing that is going on here is that the theist like to point out, that some of the atheist world views (like scientific materialism) don’t account for some things. And they are right.

I freely admit that atheism (scientific materialism) does not account for where laws of logic come from, how organic matter turns into life, how exactly brain works, or even what gravity is (we only can predict the amount of gravitational force, not the reason why it works).

The problem is when the theist says - “See, you can’t account for that, so god did it!”

Can you account for god in some way other than positing that he(she/it) is the source of all things that we cannot account for? If you can’t, then you have accounted for nothing.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Then you misunderstand the whole point. The thing that is going on here is that the theist like to point out, that some of the atheist world views (like scientific materialism) don’t account for some things. And they are right.

I freely admit that atheism (scientific materialism) does not account for where laws of logic come from, how organic matter turns into life, how exactly brain works, or even what gravity is (we only can predict the amount of gravitational force, not the reason why it works).

The problem is when the theist says - “See, you can’t account for that, so god did it!”

Can you account for god in some way other than positing that he(she/it) is the source of all things that we cannot account for? If you can’t, then you have accounted for nothing.

Well, actually I think it is you who are missing the point.

The argument between Stein and Bahnsen wasn’t about “where do these absolute laws come from”. I think Stein mentioned such a remark once only. But Stein was claiming that such laws are not absolute or universal, “they are merely conventions” that we accept or could deny. Bahnsen was trying to get him to see that such a belief is in itself non-sense (with or without any God). They never got around to the existence of God, because Stein refused logic, yet required logic of Bahnsen to prove the existence of God.

That is a denial of logic.

 

[stenlis]

Well, actually I think it is you who are missing the point.

The argument between Stein and Bahnsen wasn’t about “where do these absolute laws come from”. I think Stein mentioned such a remark once only. But Stein was claiming that such laws are not absolute or universal, “they are merely conventions” that we accept or could deny.

No, I mean that whether or not Stein can demonstrate what is the source of the laws of logic does not matter. Suppose he can’t and he is wrong in claiming they are not universal. You can attribute them to god. But then you have to demonstrate god. Not knowing where something comes from does not demonstrate god.

 

[James_S_Saint]

No, I mean that whether or not Stein can demonstrate what is the source of the laws of logic does not matter. Suppose he can’t and he is wrong in claiming they are not universal. You can attribute them to god. But then you have to demonstrate god. Not knowing where something comes from does not demonstrate god.

I agree, but I am saying that isn’t what the debate actually entailed.

If Stein had accepted that the laws of logic are universal, then Bahnsen might have then proclaimed that God created those laws. But it couldn’t get that far, because Stein refused the laws as being laws.

 

[stenlis]

I agree, but I am saying that isn’t what the debate actually entailed.

If Stein had accepted that the laws of logic are universal, then Bahnsen might have then proclaimed that God created those laws. But it couldn’t get that far, because Stein refused the laws as being laws.

I agree.

I just thought that - considering the title of this thread - it would be appropriate to discuss whether the actual transcendetal argument for the existence of god is an ‘undeniable proof’ rather than how well or badly did Stein do when arguing against it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If I had been Bahnsen, I would have examined with, “So do you believe that something can be what it isn’t?” And from what I saw, Stein would have said, “no”, to which I would have replied, “So you believe that it is universal that what is cannot be also what isn’t?”

I’m not sure what Stein would have responded to that with. Stein seemed to deny himself several times. But if he had accepted that, then the debate could continue and get to the point of God’s proposed existence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I agree.

I just thought that - considering the title of this thread - it would be appropriate to discuss whether the actual transcendetal argument for the existence of god is an ‘undeniable proof’ rather than how well or badly did Stein do when arguing against it.

What do you see as the “transcendental argument”? {you (or someone) mentioned that it was complex so as to confuse}