Proof of God's ExistenceWhile Philosophers have sought thousands of years to provide proof that God exists, which of these arguments: Ontological argument (God contains all perfections, including...

Proof of God's Existence

While Philosophers have sought thousands of years to provide proof that God exists, which of these arguments: Ontological argument (God contains all perfections, including existence. God necessarily exists), Cosmological argument (All things are the result of earlier causes; that causal sequence had to begin, and only God could have begun it), or Argument from design (Things in nature demonstrate too much complexity and design to have arisen by accident; God must exist in order to have created and designed that complexity), seem to be the best proof of the existence of God?

 

Asked on

79 Answers | Add Yours

wordprof's profile pic

Posted on

You are trying to use logic, a human invention, to discuss the "existence" of a being or force beyond logic. Just because we can form the sentence "Does God exist?" does not make the inquiry valid.
boblawrence's profile pic

Posted on

If there were a proof of God's existence, there would be no controversy.  Saying things like, "the complexity of our world proves a devine intervention in its creation", is no more a proof of God's existence,than saying "I'm sure there's a God because I don't think man created his own universe."

A significant problem in discussions like this revolves around what one's idea of God happens to be.  Is she a force, a being...or merely that ill-defined thing we call "nature"?

Since there is no universal definition of God, and vast differences in religeous beliefs throughout the world, the likelihood of proof of God's existence to the satisfaction of the majority of human beings seems unlikely in the extreme.

kplhardison's profile pic

Posted on

1. "God contains all perfections, including existence. God necessarily exists": This addresses more the identity, the defining attribute, of God rather than addressing the causative principles behind the presence of God.

2. "All things are the result of earlier causes; that causal sequence had to begin, and only God could have begun it": This presents a logical fallacy since an exhaustive catalogue of the inceptions of causalities doesn't exist.

3. "Things in nature demonstrate too much complexity and design to have arisen by accident; God must exist in order to have created and designed that complexity": This is persuasive speculation based upon observable fact. Of the three, this is most plausible since it acknowledges within itself its speculative nature.

A fourth persuasive argument option favored by some is akin to the persuasive argument for the notion of romantic love, one never yet successfully refuted: "I feel something life changing, valuable and affirmative and euphoric otherwise unaccountable; therefore it must be God [or: therefore it must be love]".

stolperia's profile pic

Posted on

I don't need proof - I believe. Because I believe, I interpret all things through the lens of my faith and belief in the existence of God. Because I interpret all things through that lens, I don't have to explain how God came to exist before all other things or how God caused or shaped the creation of the universe - I believe that it happened and that many things are beyond my human ability to understand or explain in a rational, logical manner.

litteacher8's profile pic

Posted on

There is no way to prove that God exists.  There is also no way to prove that God does not exist.  God also might have existed, but exist no more.  After all, some believe that God is dead.  I am not sure how that fits in with your definition of Heaven and Hell, but it does get complicated.

bullgatortail's profile pic

Posted on

Until God materializes and addresses each and every living creature on Earth, there can be no proof that God exists, and atheists and agnostics would not believe in God even in the case of this scenario. "Faith" is the key word here, and the belief in a Supreme Being is based on this one word. 

wannam's profile pic

Posted on

Out of the three, I would say that argument by design is the easiest support.  However, I also agree with post 3 that this is still very subjective.  I see God in the design of nature because I believe in God.  The designs and intricacies of life support my belief but they do not prove it.  I think the whole point is that you can't prove God exists.  Of course, you can't prove that he doesn't exist either.  Belief in any deity is a matter of faith rather than proof.

pohnpei397's profile pic

Posted on

None of these three seems to be any real sort of proof.  I agree with the basic idea of Post #3.  I would add to that the argument that, if everything must be the result of an earlier cause, then we have to wonder what caused God.  I don't think that it's proof to say "everything came from something else UNTIL WE GET TO GOD."

We can't prove the existence of God.  It's something we have to take on faith or on the evidence of our own emotions.

enotechris's profile pic

Posted on

The problem, as #3 clearly states by example, is that any attempt to prove God must be by a process beyond human reason, or as the Catholics like to say, as an "Act of Faith."  That requires a jump from one postulate to another, which may or may not be logically warranted as in a proof, as statement #2 in the preceding post analyzed. If God is All-in-All, the Be-All and End-All, human constructs, which by definition serve to delineate, cannot contain the concept of a divinity, since by definition a divinity transcends all human constructs.

Certainly there is structure, wonder and beauty in the Universe. Those may be presented as evidence of divinity, but they are not proof.

readerofbooks's profile pic

Posted on

The ones that you mention are certain the most popular ones. However, there are others. While I was in graduate school one of the famous ones was rooted in history. The argument goes something like this. The vast majority of people in the world from a historical point of view believed in the divine. This went across different cultures and peoples. Atheism is something fairly new. In addition, sociologists point out that religion is on the upswing even in our modern world. So, the sheer number of people, according to this line of reasoning has some power.

frizzyperm's profile pic

Posted on

Koran does not reaffirm “primitive tribal bullying” but provides respect to women, social justice... - Najm

If I hear one more muslim man tell me their religion respects women then I'm going to scream. Islam does not respect women, Najm. The Koran specifically deatils how a husband should beat his wife. In Islamic society women are the property of men. You call it 'respect' to make it look civilised, but Islamic society is 300 years behind the West regarding women. And throwing battery acid in little girls' faces because they go to school is an extreme example of a society that has no tolerance for women's independance.

You compared Saudi Arabia favorably to Western Countries because it has low crime. Really? Well, they have very low crime in North Korea too. And in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed out of the house without a male escort and a head-to-toe black bag over them. Don't you DARE call that respectful. It is tyranny.

In 2008, some Saudi women launched a petition “My Guardian Knows What’s Best for Me," which gathered over 5,000 signatures. The petition requested punishment for activists demanding "equality between men and women, [and] mingling between men and women in mixed environments".

This oppression of women in traditional Islamic society is so strong that many have become institutionalsied and have absolutely no sense of self-worth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

najm1947's profile pic

Posted on

In response to post 63:

There is no holy book written by God. Do you really think that the 'creator of the multi-verse' couldn't devise a better system of laws and rules than the primitive tribal bullying laid out in the Koran? Do you really believe that … this God couldn't think of a more sophisticated legal system than stoning? - Frizzyperm

  1. The language of whole passage confirms that the God exists but He did not write Koran.
  2. Koran does not reaffirm the “primitive tribal bullying” but provides respect to women, social justice, law of inheritance, condemns slavery and so on.
  3. You cannot produce a single verse in Koran regarding “stoning”.
  4. The other punitive measures like amputation or killing are the deterrents. You can compare the crime rates in the civilized world and Saudi Arabia where these are implemented. Why the doctors go for imputation in case of cancer and gangrene – is it savagery? No! To save life - here they are to save the society from the brutality of the criminals.
  5. Had it been so faulty, the name of Mohammad, spelled as “Mahomet”, would not have been included in the Fresco titled “Justice, A Hemicycle of Law Givers” installed in the Great Hall of Lincolns Inn, London – One of the oldest Law Schools.

 Reason does not work against prejudice and jealousy.

I believe in God and I am thankful to Him for blessing me with the wisdom to be so - no matter whatever someone calls it.

ninsan97's profile pic

Posted on

In reply to #57

Yes that is what i am trying to say, that the quran is perfect. the Bible cannot be the word of God and neither can it match the perfection of the Quran because it had soo many contradictions in it.

in genesis 1:14-19 we are told that God made two great lights to govern the day and the night. The Holy Bible is wrong to call the moon a great light, albeit a lesser light, since the moon has no light of its own. there are plenty more mistakes in the Bible.  

the Quran, on the other hand, have no mistakes or contradictions and if have any doubt then please tell me some i would love to know.

frizzyperm's profile pic

Posted on

In reply to post 59:

Do you want 'ten Surahs like it'? How about The Bible? - Frizzyperm

Bible! Yes. The one that is the words of God - The Original One, revealed on to His prophets from time to time.

And by the way, what is being proved by quoting Bible? These are the words of God given to His prophets long ago and such it does not qualify the challenge. To quote Bible is like proving the existence of God, and you have been successful in it - Congratulations Frizzyperm!

The words of the existing versions of Bible are written by various people and the comments on them are given in the following links for your consumption only. I do not like to reproduce the same here as these may hurt the followers of The Bible.

http://lost-history.com/authors.php

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/history-of-the-bible.htm

http://creation.com/genesis-bible-authors-believed-it-to-be-history

On the contrary, Koran is unaltered, and is present in its original words since it was revealed by God on to the prophet Mohammad.

1) The Koran demands anyone show a text equal to its quality.

2) So I suggested The Bible.

3) You cheerfully produced page after page which show why the Bible is not perfect.

To quote Bible is like proving the existence of God, and you have been successful in it - Congratulations Frizzyperm! - Najm

Slow down, Tiger. I'm afraid I offered you The Bible as a comparison to The Koran knowing that you would say, "No! Hah! The Bible is NOT perfect." As an atheist, I find it sad that Christians will happily highlight errors in the Koran, then ignore errors in the Bible, while Muslims will happily highlight errors in the Bible, but ignore errors in the Koran.

You both use logic to prove inconsistencies in each-other's books, but then reject the same logic when it is applied to your book. It is, as I said, sad and very, very human.

There is no holy book written by God. Do you really think that the 'creator of the multi-verse' couldn't devise a better system of laws and rules than the primitive tribal bullying laid out in the Koran? Do you really believe that the God who created the stars and the planets, trees and DNA, blackholes, quarks and tides; this God couldn't think of a more sophisticated legal system than stoning?

You can see the problems in The Bible because you don't “have an eye to perceive it.” But you approach the Koran with unquestioning eyes so you cannot see how it, and The Bible are equally flawed.

najm1947's profile pic

Posted on

In reply to post 55:

Evolution can create complex organisms through simple processes without the need for a designer. – Frizzyperm

And evolution needs the basic building blocks we know not yet what they are. Made up of still not fully known particles and probably waves too – not sure! The simplest of these make the huge burning stars, and combined with others - planets and various life forms eventually turning in to galaxies and so on, moving in complete harmony in this Universe. And we know not the Universe as it is today as what we see today is a millions & billions of years old story.

All by evolution, by itself in a random fashion. Also evolving in to most complex life forms like humans - including us the debaters who come up with such discussions. No designer, no creator involved. But surely made up of those fascinating tiny building blocks – we don’t know where they came from.

Amazing - Truly Amazing!

But someone is there who made these building blocks in the first place.

He is the God,

My Lord,

The Creator of all these building blocks,

The Ever-Living.

He doesn’t need anyone to believe in Him. He is there - The one, The Unique.

Showing 1–15 of 79

We’ve answered 333,601 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question