Proofs for the Existence of God (Updated)

[Diogenes' Dog]

Introduction
Traditional proofs for the existence of God are never very convincing, yet originally they presumably were persuasive. Part of the reason for this is that the assumptions on which they were based are out of date. The following proofs therefore are updated versions of some of the traditional ones, to reflect our modern assumptions. How convincing they are, is left to you to judge! :shrug:

Ontological Argument
1. God is the Supreme Being.
2. The Supreme Being incorporates every existing and every possible being as diverse manifestations of its one Self. (Like allotropes in chemistry).
3. The Supreme Being cannot (by definition) ‘be’ less than any of its component manifestations.
4. Therefore if any being exists, the Supreme Being must exist also.
5. Cogito ergo sum.
6. Therefore the Supreme Being (God) exists.

Cosmological Argument
1. All reality derives from some unknown ultimate source.
2. Belief in God is the belief that the Ultimate Source of all reality includes consciousness.
3. Reality includes consciousness.
4. Therefore the Ultimate Source must include consciousness.
5. Therefore God is the Ultimate Source of all reality.

Teleological Argument
1. Every event involves a probable overall increase in entropy (disorder).
2. The Universe must therefore have been very highly ordered when it was created (Boltzmann’s “Past Hypothesis”).
3. This degree of order is extremely improbable to have occurred spontaneously.
4. Both mind and matter/energy exist. Our presumptions are that either:

a. matter/energy (physicalism) or...
b. mind (idealism) is the more fundamental reality.

5. Therefore, it follows that either:

a. the Universe exists as the result of an extremely improbable physical event (physicalism) or...
b. the Universe is the product of a purposeful Creator (mind), capable of creating order out of nothing (idealism).

6. From (3), the latter (b) is more probable.
7. We may also assume that the Creator is non-physical and eternal (not subject to space/time constraints), and therefore requires no prior cause (“who created the Creator?”).

Not convinced yet?

Pascal’s Wager
This is not a proof, but a recipe for the good life, in the absence of proof either way. (I also posted it in the thread on Pascal's Wager, but include it here for the hell of it.)

1. There is no conclusive rational proof of God’s existence or non-existence.
2. However, if God does exist, finding God becomes of supreme importance, and the way to the ultimately rewarding and meaningful life.
3. Research shows that believers in a benign God are generally happier, healthier and live longer than non-believers.
(N.B. See the work of Tully, J., et al., 2006; O'Connor, P.J., et al. 2005; Krucoff, M. W., et al. 2005; D'Souza, R.F. & A. Rodrigo. 2004; Hughes M. et al., 2000; Koenig H.G., et al., 1997; Strawbridge, W.J., et al. 1997 and many more).
4. Therefore, in the absence of proof, it is worth making an initial ‘leap of faith’ and to act on the assumption that a benign God does exist (until the evidence proves otherwise).
5. If you are right and God exists, you will live a rewarding and meaningful life.
6. If you are wrong and God does not exist, you are still more likely to have led a happier, healthier and longer life, than if you had not believed.

 

[spidergoat]

The Cosmological Argument could easily apply to nature itself. Matter is the ultimate source, and from it comes conscious systems like life.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

The Cosmological Argument could easily apply to nature itself. Matter is the ultimate source, and from it comes conscious systems like life.

True, life emerges from matter, but then an organism is not categorically different from any of its component physical parts - just more complex.

However, it's hard to see how consciousness, which is so different from any physical or chemical properties of matter, can emerge from even complex stuff, like neurons... unless consciousness is a fundamental part of reality.

How big a hive do you need, with how many signalling pheromones before a swarm acquires the sensation of the taste of nectar? :shrug:

P.S. (After more thought) I think you make a good point SG in that the 'ultimate source' of reality could be something very simple e.g. strings or quarks or something, (which are obviously not conscious) but can be built up into more complex structures e.g. brains and computers. However:

1) Even strings and quarks come from somewhere (e.g. Vacuum energy), and are governed by rule based properties within space/time. They are thus not the ultimate source of reality.

2) The objection that you raise is that the Cosmological argument could be used with other complex physical objects e.g. computers, in their ability to compute. Would we say that ultimate source of reality is therefore a computer? At first glance - no.

However, computers do exhibit properties that are fundamental to reality e.g. mathematics and logic. These probably are properties of the ultimate source of reality! I cannot think of a complex machine that does not in some way tap into some fundamental property of reality in this way.

 

[spidergoat]

The fundamental constituents of the universe do not "follow" rules, laws, or mathmatics. These things are models which we apply to the thing being described, and seem to fit the phenomenon to the best of our ability. Logic is not necessarily fundamental to reality, as at the quantum level, we postulate uncaused events, which are not logical in the realm of ordinary common sense.

Is it that hard to see how consciousness emerges from matter? If it emerges from matter, it need not have been present before matter. A computer is a metaphor for consciousness, but nothing about computers are present in it's constituent matter. They are machines that convert input into output, and our brains do roughly the same thing.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ontological Argument
1. God is the Supreme Being.

This argument starts off circular.

Cosmological Argument[/B]
1. All reality derives from some unknown ultimate source.

Many theories of reality show it to BE the "source"; whereas, our universe would be derived from reality.

Teleological Argument
...
...
...2. The Universe must therefore have been very highly ordered when it was created (Boltzmann’s “Past Hypothesis”).

This argument is claiming that the universe was "created", an idea for which there is no evidence for (not to mention there is evidence to the contrary).

Not convinced yet?

Not in the least .

Pascal’s Wager
This is not a proof, but a recipe for the good life, in the absence of proof either way. (I also posted it in the thread on Pascal's Wager, but include it here for the hell of it.)

Pascal's wager may lead to a more psychologically satisfying life, but it comes at a rather big cost of devaluing truth.

 

[swarm]

Introduction
Traditional proofs for the existence of God are never very convincing,

Neither are your revisions.

Pascal's wager depends on cowardice and an evil god.

 

[wynn]

Pascal’s Wager
This is not a proof, but a recipe for the good life, in the absence of proof either way.


1. There is no conclusive rational proof of God’s existence or non-existence.
2. However, if God does exist, finding God becomes of supreme importance, and the way to the ultimately rewarding and meaningful life.
3. Research shows that believers in a benign God are generally happier, healthier and live longer than non-believers.
(N.B. See the work of Tully, J., et al., 2006; O'Connor, P.J., et al. 2005; Krucoff, M. W., et al. 2005; D'Souza, R.F. & A. Rodrigo. 2004; Hughes M. et al., 2000; Koenig H.G., et al., 1997; Strawbridge, W.J., et al. 1997 and many more).
4. Therefore, in the absence of proof, it is worth making an initial ‘leap of faith’ and to act on the assumption that a benign God does exist (until the evidence proves otherwise).
5. If you are right and God exists, you will live a rewarding and meaningful life.
6. If you are wrong and God does not exist, you are still more likely to have led a happier, healthier and longer life, than if you had not believed.

Do you know of anyone who actually did that, acted on such reasoning?

Sure, many people may explain, talk about their theism in a manner so as to present it as Pascal's Wager - but this is not necessarily how their belief in God actually came to be.

 

[swarm]

...

Look you don't need and of that BS. Just produce god.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

The fundamental constituents of the universe do not "follow" rules, laws, or mathmatics. These things are models which we apply to the thing being described, and seem to fit the phenomenon to the best of our ability. Logic is not necessarily fundamental to reality, as at the quantum level, we postulate uncaused events, which are not logical in the realm of ordinary common sense.

I'm very pleased you replied SG. I value your input!

First, logic is not causation... Quantum logic is different from macro-world logic (something can be true and false simultaneously in quantum logic) however, quantum particles and macro-world objects still follow the 'rules' of logic (which we derive by observation). Thus I think we can say that logic is a fundamental property of reality (which is what a computer uses to e.g. make models of reality).

Is it that hard to see how consciousness emerges from matter? If it emerges from matter, it need not have been present before matter. A computer is a metaphor for consciousness, but nothing about computers are present in it's constituent matter. They are machines that convert input into output, and our brains do roughly the same thing.

A computer converts inputs to outputs through mathematical and logical processes - these are basic to our reality - all physics is based on them. Consciousness must also be basic, e.g. it seems to be able to collapse wave functions etc. - even if it is emergent from physical brains.

To be emergent something must be more than just a sum of the component parts - it manifests a new property of reality!

 

[James R]

In the ontological argument, substitute Satan, the Prince of Darkness, for God and we deduce that Satan exists. Correct?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

This argument starts off circular.

It is a circular argument CC - but then so are many great ideas e.g. evolution = 'survival of the fittest' = those best adapted to survive, survive!

Many theories of reality show it to BE the "source"; whereas, our universe would be derived from reality.

This is a "why is there anything at all" type question.

Isn't it what physics is all about - trying to determine the ultimate principles and origin of the reality we observe?

This argument is claiming that the universe was "created", an idea for which there is no evidence for (not to mention there is evidence to the contrary).

The argument works the same if you use another word - but I can't think of one (can you?). "Created" does not here imply a Creator, only a "creation" - something that is the original product of unknown processes.

Not in the least .

Why am I not surprised?

Pascal's wager may lead to a more psychologically satisfying life, but it comes at a rather big cost of devaluing truth.

I disagree, it is suspending disbelief in order to test a hypothesis, which if true carries great benefits. Open your mind to those other possibilities Cat! :m:

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Neither are your revisions.

Pascal's wager depends on cowardice and an evil god.

His original, sadly - yes. However, happily, theology, science and our assumptions move on! The argument is at root saying "try this out - there's lots to gain and nothing to lose!".

 

[Enmos]

His original, sadly - yes. However, happily, theology, science and our assumptions move on! The argument is at root saying "try this out - there's lots to gain and nothing to lose!".

And how does one 'try it out' without having genuine belief ?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

And how does one 'try it out' without having genuine belief ?

Suspend disbelief, and act 'as if'...
e.g. do something for someone else (God is love), appreciate some aspect of your life, learn meditation, make contact, read stuff, experiment with 'handing over' something that concerns you (or maybe that concerns someone else!) to that higher power and listen to your wisest inner thoughts...

I'm sure you can think of stuff you might do differently!

There was a pastor on another thread who basically said that faith was a 'gift of Grace' if one is open to it - so maybe it just comes if you seek it!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Do you know of anyone who actually did that, acted on such reasoning?

Sure, many people may explain, talk about their theism in a manner so as to present it as Pascal's Wager - but this is not necessarily how their belief in God actually came to be.

I think you are probably right Signal. I don't think these 'proofs' ever converted anyone!

 

[earth]

And how does one 'try it out' without having genuine belief ?

No need for genuine belief in the bible and the things written in it. Its foundation is based in myth. The creation story in the bible has its beginnings through the Babylonians and their myth Gods. All of mankind was believed to have been created from the clay that was made by Apsu, a Mesopotamian God. Remove the word Mesopotamian leaving the word God and there you have it.
http://www.ancient-mythology.com/mesopotamian/apsu.php

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

In the ontological argument, substitute Satan, the Prince of Darkness, for God and we deduce that Satan exists. Correct?

LOL JR

If you think the Supreme Being is a masochist then I suppose so... The SB would have to enjoy hurting itself, but then maybe that would explain much about the World!!

I think it is because we don't recognise 'others' for who they are that we are alienated, and that through our gradual enlightenment we will one day recognise all beings as integral to ourselves. That is the way the worlds spiritual literature generally points anyway (with some notable exceptions). "Do unto others..." etc.

However, you could well ask why it is this way in the first place!
That's a long discussion!

 

[scifes]

excellent high level thread, Diogenes' Dog. i salute you

In the ontological argument, substitute Satan, the Prince of Darkness, for God and we deduce that Satan exists. Correct?

or pixies or flying elephants, or even satan, but the problem is not in the name, the entity (creator) exists, and what matter are his properties, whatever name you assign to it, it still stays what people understand when you say "god".

And how does one 'try it out' without having genuine belief ?

good point, i was going to mention it.

and in my opinion, you can't, you can't make yourself believe something you don't believe, you can kid others but not yourself.

IMO pascals wager should be an insentive to get a move on from atheism and start to search religions in hope that ne of them is true, "true" of course would be relative to you, as you'd find others who don't believe in it, but one which you're totally convinced with every cell in your body is true, if you don't find one, then die searching, at least you'll die with hope, and have done what you could about what you should.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

excellent high level thread, Diogenes' Dog. i salute you

Thank you scifes! :cheers:

or pixies or flying elephants, or even satan, but the problem is not in the name, the entity (creator) exists, and what matter are his properties, whatever name you assign to it, it still stays what people understand when you say "god".

I think James R believes that the ontological argument could also be used to prove an evil creator. However, I'm not sure if we could all be manifestations of an evil creator - it would seem self-defeating if we were created to want to hate and destroy each other (and therefore all manifestations of the creator)!

good point, i was going to mention it.
and in my opinion, you can't, you can't make yourself believe something you don't believe, you can kid others but not yourself.

IMO pascals wager should be an insentive to get a move on from atheism and start to search religions in hope that ne of them is true, "true" of course would be relative to you, as you'd find others who don't believe in it, but one which you're totally convinced with every cell in your body is true, if you don't find one, then die searching, at least you'll die with hope, and have done what you could about what you should.

Couldn't have put it better!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

No need for genuine belief in the bible and the things written in it. Its foundation is based in myth. The creation story in the bible has its beginnings through the Babylonians and their myth Gods. All of mankind was believed to have been created from the clay that was made by Apsu, a Mesopotamian God. Remove the word Mesopotamian leaving the word God and there you have it.
http://www.ancient-mythology.com/mesopotamian/apsu.php

I wouldn't be surprised if the Genesis story borrowed heavily from the Mesopotamian (and Babylonian) creation myths.

However, myths have their own truth, and also it would be hard to argue that the Bible is all myth. There are all types of truth in the Bible - mythical truths, allegorical truths, proverbial truths and (within the limits of reportage) historical truths. Some of it (e.g. the Ten commandments, or "love your neighbour as yourself") is very direct!