Logical/Metaphysical Proof of the Existence of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowAgnostic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NowAgnostic

Guest
I’m willing to listen to anyone who can provide a proof of the existence of God, in his or her own words, not merely referring to Aquinas or Craig or Plantinga or anyone else, but of course you’re free to copy-and-paste from their arguments as much as you’d like. The proof should start with clearly stated metaphysical assumptions, epistemologically basic beliefs. They are necessary and it’s OK - nothing can be done without them. Then, a logically deductive, valid argument needs to be shown which concludes the existence of God. God will be defined as an infinite being (without limitations), purely actual (without any potency), and a being who, if He exists, exists necessarily, from which the traditional attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, simplicity, etc.) follow.
 
NowAgnostic said:
I’m willing to listen to anyone who can provide a proof of the existence of God, in his or her own words, not merely referring to Aquinas or Craig or Plantinga or anyone else, but of course you’re free to copy-and-paste from their arguments as much as you’d like. The proof should start with clearly stated metaphysical assumptions, epistemologically basic beliefs. They are necessary and it’s OK - nothing can be done without them. Then, a logically deductive, valid argument needs to be shown which concludes the existence of God. God will be defined as an infinite being (without limitations), purely actual (without any potency), and a being who, if He exists, exists necessarily, from which the traditional attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, simplicity, etc.) follow.
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)

Well.l.l. actually, it’s not our job to "prove’ Him to you. Logic would dictate that to be your job.

By the same token…try “disproving” by your same measurement criteria.

I hope this helps
 
NowAgnostic said:
I’m willing to listen to anyone who can provide a proof of the existence of God, in his or her own words, not merely referring to Aquinas or Craig or Plantinga or anyone else, but of course you’re free to copy-and-paste from their arguments as much as you’d like. The proof should start with clearly stated metaphysical assumptions, epistemologically basic beliefs. They are necessary and it’s OK - nothing can be done without them. Then, a logically deductive, valid argument needs to be shown which concludes the existence of God. God will be defined as an infinite being (without limitations), purely actual (without any potency), and a being who, if He exists, exists necessarily, from which the traditional attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, simplicity, etc.) follow.
Click to expand...
I like the Kalaam argument. There are two forms I’ve seen
  1. Everything caused event or thing has a cause
  2. There cannot be an infinite chain of causes
  3. This requires an Uncaused Cause.
and
  1. Everything caused event or thing has a cause
  2. The universe has a cause.
  3. This requires a Creator / “Causer.”
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/10/kalam.html
 
There are several eyewitness testimonies of God’s existance. What more do you need?

Have you ever considered that God can’t be proven, because He is not a theory?

Somethings are just the way they are because you know it. Not because you believe it.

Do you believe you are a real person? Or do you know it?
 
The only proof available in logic is the verification that the deductions have lead to a valid conclusion. The truth of the whole matter is in the truth of the axioms.

There is no real thing that we prove to exist by deducting from axioms. Logic is not proof of reality. Logic is used to show the progress of a verb, not the existence of a noun.

To know that something exists it must be experienced. Knowledge of existence comes through experience only.
If I tell you that there are six beers in my refrigerator, why would any exercise pure logical deduction prove anything about that. You simply have the opportunity to trust that I am telling you the truth, go to the box and get a beer.

Although, you may not trust me, and remain beerless…
 
Hi NowAgnostic,

We have gone over some of the more traditional arguments for God’s existence, which I maintain are sound. However, there are a number of contemporary arguments that either modalize or simply bring “up-to-date” some of these traditional arguments. We might consider the Gale/Pruss modal cosmological argument (MCA), for example.
  1. The union of all contingent facts U is possibly explained by an external agent.
  2. If U is explained by an external agent, that agent is a necessary being.
  3. Hence, a necessary being possibly exists.
  4. Whatever is possibly necessary exists in all possible worlds. (S5 axiom)
  5. Therefore, a necessary being exists in the actual world.
  6. The explanation of U is either mechanical or personal.
  7. The explanation of U cannot be mechanical.
  8. Therefore, the explanation of U is a personal necessary being.
    Q.E.D.
Like the modal ontological argument, the MCA’s controversial premise is (1). (2)-(5) are based on the relatively uncontroversial S5 axiom. I take (6) to be self-evident and would support (7) by appealing to the contingency of the laws of nature. Mechanical causes are, I think, necessarily contingent. This, of course, leaves us with the conclusion that the necessary being that explains U is a personal agent, which sounds rather God-like to me.

This argument in and of itself does not prove the existence of an infinite being, but it does get us to something theistic, or at the very least, something like theism.
 
I’ve also been extremely interested in Maydole’s modalized version of Thomas’ Third Way: the Modal Third Way (MTW).
  1. Every temporally contingent being possibly fails to exist at some time. (True by definition)
  2. If all beings possibly fail to exist, then it is possible that all beings collectively fail to exist at some past time. (Premise)
  3. It is necessarily the case that possible truths are explicable. (Premise)
  4. Necessarily, something is only explicable if there was never a time when nothing existed. (Premise)
  5. If there was never possibly a time when nothing existed, then a temporally necessary being exists.
  6. Hence, a temporally necessary being exists.
  7. Whatever is temporally necessary might be unlimited. (Premise)
  8. Whatever is possible is either unlimited or actualizable. (True by definition)
  9. A temporally necessary being cannot be actualized. (Premise)
  10. Whatever is unlimited is supreme. (True by definition)
  11. Therefore, a Supreme Being exists.
    Q.E.D.
Notice that this argument is not dependent on the S5 axiom, but that it does make use of possible worlds in premises (2), (3), and (7). These premises, in addition, to (1), are airtight in my opinion. Since (5) and (6) necessarily follow from (1)-(4), we can know that a temporally necessary being exists. And, since actualization requires a time when something did not exist, whatever is temporally necessary must be unlimited, as opposed to actualizable. I think (10) ought to be granted, since part of what we mean by “supremacy” is a thing’s unlimitedness, in addition to its uniqueness. Now, if there were more than one unlimited being, A and B, then A would lack something that B possesses, or vice-versa. But, since a thing can only lack something if it is limited, there can be only one unlimited being, which implies that a Supreme Being exists.

The main drawback to this argument is that it does not demonstrate the existence of a logically necessary being. For, there are, by hypothesis, possible worlds in which nothing presently exists, which means that nothing need be presently explicable in those worlds. However, given that something presently exists in the actual world, it follows that a temporally necessary (even if not logically necessary) and Supreme Being exists.

I apologize for the length and relative wordiness of these arguments. We can flesh these out some more if you’d like. What are your thoughts?
 
If I walk into a room and see a beautiful painting on the wall, my natural presumption would be to think that some intelligent being created that work of art. Are you really telling me it’s “logical” to claim that the painting came into being of its own power or by random chance?

So rather than proofs, innate logic forces us to conclude that the Earth and its inhabitants – which are incalculably more complex than an oil painting – must have gotten here by an intelligent being, not random chance.

To deny this would require you to show proof, as KimmieLittle said, since your view would be more contrary to the natural conclusion.
 
NowAgnostic said:
I’m willing to listen to anyone who can provide a proof of the existence of God, in his or her own words, not merely referring to Aquinas or Craig or Plantinga or anyone else, but of course you’re free to copy-and-paste from their arguments as much as you’d like. The proof should start with clearly stated metaphysical assumptions, epistemologically basic beliefs. They are necessary and it’s OK - nothing can be done without them. Then, a logically deductive, valid argument needs to be shown which concludes the existence of God. God will be defined as an infinite being (without limitations), purely actual (without any potency), and a being who, if He exists, exists necessarily, from which the traditional attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, simplicity, etc.) follow.
Click to expand...
NowAgnostic
How about something different for a change? My own proof!

AXIOMS:
  1. The universe began with the big bang (BB).
  2. There is only one universe, the one in which we exist.
  3. The universe is finite and bounded.
  4. Every effect has a cause.
LOGICAL DEDUCTION:
A. Nothingness exists
B. God is nothingness,
C. Therefore God exists

Argument for premise A,
Given premises 1 and 2, nothing (or nothingness) existed prior to the BB.

Argument for premise B:

Theorem 1: Given premise 1: Since time began with the BB, the Before/Beyond is eternal (without time)

Theorem 2: Given premise 1: There was no space, time, matter, and energy prior to the BB, the Before/Beyond was formless, therefore immutable.

Theorem 3: Given premise 3: The same nothingness that existed before the BB necessarily still exists beyond our finite universe.

Theorem 4: Given premise 3: The Before/Beyond is necessarily infinite

Theorem 5: Given premise 4: Whatever is possible cannot be created; it must pre-exist actuality; the Before/Beyond is all possibility; therefore the Before/Beyond is omnipotent

Theorem 6: Given theorem 4: The infinite nothingness, the substance of the Before/Beyond, is prescient; it knows all possibilities, and hence is omniscient

Theorem 7: Given premise 4 and theorem 1: The cause of the universe necessarily inhered in the Before/Beyond; it is the source of creation
Since the Before/Beyond is infinite, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, and the Creator; God is the Before/Beyond; infinite nothingness is the substance of God.

Each one of these statements can be defended with extended arguments, but not here. More details for the above arguments can be found in my thread “God exists, But How?” I am only contributing my view here because there were virtually no non-believers responding to my thread and I wondered why.

Yppop
 
NowAgnostic said:
I’m willing to listen to anyone who can provide a proof of the existence of God, in his or her own words, not merely referring to Aquinas or Craig or Plantinga or anyone else, but of course you’re free to copy-and-paste from their arguments as much as you’d like. The proof should start with clearly stated metaphysical assumptions, epistemologically basic beliefs. They are necessary and it’s OK - nothing can be done without them. Then, a logically deductive, valid argument needs to be shown which concludes the existence of God. God will be defined as an infinite being (without limitations), purely actual (without any potency), and a being who, if He exists, exists necessarily, from which the traditional attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, simplicity, etc.) follow.
Click to expand...
In my own words I’d say, after reading your demands above,that what you are really looking for is reassurance from us that God does exist. Is your name Thomas by any chance?
 
punkforchrist said:
Hi NowAgnostic,

We have gone over some of the more traditional arguments for God’s existence, which I maintain are sound. However, there are a number of contemporary arguments that either modalize or simply bring “up-to-date” some of these traditional arguments. We might consider the Gale/Pruss modal cosmological argument (MCA), for example.
  1. The union of all contingent facts U is possibly explained by an external agent.
  2. If U is explained by an external agent, that agent is a necessary being.
  3. Hence, a necessary being possibly exists.
  4. Whatever is possibly necessary exists in all possible worlds. (S5 axiom)
  5. Therefore, a necessary being exists in the actual world.
  6. The explanation of U is either mechanical or personal.
  7. The explanation of U cannot be mechanical.
  8. Therefore, the explanation of U is a personal necessary being.
    Q.E.D.
Like the modal ontological argument, the MCA’s controversial premise is (1)…
Click to expand...
OK then let’s see if can be justified. Just what is meant by an explanation? If contingent fact A being explained by fact B means that B → A then premise (1) is false, because the union of all contingent facts cannot be explained by a necessary fact because then there would be no contingent facts, they would all be necessary; thus, U must be unexplained. If B explaining A doesn’t mean B → A then what does it mean?

In a theistic context this would mean, how can the existence of God be said to explain His actions?
 
NowAg,

So you may be prepared to concede that there is an uncaused cause, or creator, but you’re holding out because it’s not necessarily God? (see two posts above)

By definition, God IS whatever being/creator that the proof points to. What are you looking for, a supernova that illuminates the sky with the letters G-O-D?
 
yppop said:
LOGICAL DEDUCTION:
A. Nothingness exists
B. God is nothingness,
C. Therefore God exists
Click to expand...
“God is nothingness”?? Now I see where you were coming from in our prior discussions. :o

I’m curious how you justify the “benevolence” of nothingness.

Nothingness, being the antithesis of somethingness, does not exist wherever there is something. So how do you claim that nothingness is “omnipresent”?

Nothingness is the state of “no effect” (and thus non-existence), so God has no effect? No effect == non-existence.

What governs the properties (what it can or cannot do) of nothingness?
 
surritter said:
By definition, God IS whatever being/creator that the proof points to. What are you looking for, a supernova that illuminates the sky with the letters G-O-D?
Click to expand...
It is ALWAYS about definitions. 😉

Deny any definition and you can deny anything. 😃
 
punkforchrist said:
I’ve also been extremely interested in Maydole’s modalized version of Thomas’ Third Way: the Modal Third Way (MTW).
  1. Every temporally contingent being possibly fails to exist at some time. (True by definition)
Click to expand...
.

Fine.
  1. If all beings possibly fail to exist, then it is possible that all beings collectively fail to exist at some past time. (Premise)
Click to expand...
An if… then can’t be a premise. The consequent must logically follow from the antecedent. And this does not follow. The fact that there is a time or range of times t1 when being A possibly fails to exist and a time t2 when being B possibly fails to exist doesn’t entail there is a time when both A and B possibly fail to exist - t1 and t2 may not overlap.

Yet I can grant for the sake of argument a null-world is possible - you don’t need temporal contingency just logical contingency. But this argument is equivocating on the meaning of “possible”. The fact that a null-world is possible does not mean that there is a possible world in which at one time nothing existed, but at a later time they did.
  1. It is necessarily the case that possible truths are explicable. (Premise)
Click to expand...
OK, again I’d like a better definition of “explicable”.
  1. Necessarily, something is only explicable if there was never a time when nothing existed. (Premise)
Click to expand...
OK.
  1. If there was never possibly a time when nothing existed, then a temporally necessary being exists.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t follow either. The fact that something exists at times t1 and t2 doesn’t imply the same thing must exist at t1 and t2.
  1. Hence, a temporally necessary being exists.
  2. Whatever is temporally necessary might be unlimited. (Premise)
Click to expand...
Unsupported. There could be more than one logically possible temporally necessary being.
  1. Whatever is possible is either unlimited or actualizable. (True by definition)
Click to expand...
No, not true. There is the logical possibility of a limited though eternal entity.
Notice that this argument is not dependent on the S5 axiom, but that it does make use of possible worlds in premises (2), (3), and (7). These premises, in addition, to (1), are airtight in my opinion.
Click to expand...
They are not.
Since (5) and (6) necessarily follow from (1)-(4), we can know that a temporally necessary being exists.
Click to expand...
Premise (2) was flawed and (5) doesn’t follow from it anyway.
I apologize for the length and relative wordiness of these arguments. We can flesh these out some more if you’d like. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
That’s OK, but this modalized version of the Third Way suffers from the same logical flaw that the original one does.
 
surritter said:
NowAg,

So you may be prepared to concede that there is an uncaused cause, or creator, but you’re holding out because it’s not necessarily God? (see two posts above)

By definition, God IS whatever being/creator that the proof points to. What are you looking for, a supernova that illuminates the sky with the letters G-O-D?
Click to expand...
Talk about a circular argument. I’ll prove the existence of some entity, and BY DEFINITION that entity is God, therefore God exists!
 
NowAgnostic said:
Talk about a circular argument. I’ll prove the existence of some entity, and BY DEFINITION that entity is God, therefore God exists!
Click to expand...
NowAgnostic,

“God” really IS defined as “whatever created and governs the physical universe”. The other attributes are not really the definition, although they can be explained and justified.
 
A) Accurate Logic exists
B) An entity is defined by its consistent characteristics
C) A god is whatever completely governs an activity
D) God is whatever entity completely governs ALL activities
E) A principle is an entity that governs
F) Whatever entity governs an activity is defined by that governor’s consistent characteristics
G) Accurate Logic is defined by the immutable principle and thus consistent
H) Accurate Logic governs ALL activities
I) Therefore, Accurate Logic is God
J) Therefore, per (A), God exists.

Accurate Logic never fails - omnipotent
Accurate Logic is within ALL things - omnipresent
Accurate Logic determines all truth - omniscient
Accurate Logic supports all that is - benevolent
Accurate Logic is eternal - existing regardless of time.
Accurate Logic is the Cause of ALL things being what they are - The Creator
Accurate Logic is not visible to the eye - invisible governor
Accurate Logic is difficult to perceive - need for man to be humble
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top