Proofs for the Existence of God (Updated)

[earth]

Creation myths - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Common Elements in Creation Myths - http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v06n2p10.htm

There are no Proofs for the Existence of God, only proof that myths exist.

 

[earth]

Mesopotamian mythology is the collective name given to Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian mythologies from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq.

Many stories in Sumerian religion appear similar to stories in other Middle-Eastern religions. For example, the Biblical account of the creation of man as well as Noah's flood resemble the Sumerian tales very closely. Gods and Goddesses from Sumer have similar representations in the religions of the Akkadians, Canaanites, and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_mythology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_mythology

IMO, the creation story in the bible has its orgins in Mesopotamia. The Jews while in captivity in Babylon modified the Babylonian creation myth and tailored it to fit the Jewish culture.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

The Mythological Argument: Ancient people made their own gods and modern people don't. Since ancient man was wrong and modern man is right then God is real.

 

[swivel]

Crunchy Cat dismantled each one with ease.

Well-done, sir.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I like very much the Pascal's Wager portion.

Thanks yasmin. :cheers:
Yes - that's my favourite too.

I suggest it represents either an ancestral memory or it reflects earlier creation myths from this time period.

I think you might well be right SG. Presumably these stories were long part of the oral tradition of the ancient Jewish people, before they got written down. They may reflect stories told way back when agriculture first appeared, and nomadic tribes settled down.

That is only part of their possible truth however. I think myths are told and retold because they hold psychological truths, which are relevant today (see below).

No they don't. A myth doesn't have any truth in it.

Facts are the truth. Myth containing a kernel of truth only makes the myth believable. And then only sometimes is the myth believable.

You take a very literal attitude to truth earth! Myths are important because they are metaphors for aspects of life - i.e. psychological truths.

Freud's "Oedipus complex" is based on Sophocles tragedy (presumably taken from myth), the existentialist philosopher Camus used the myth of Sisyphus, as a metaphor for life's meaninglessness and struggle. All these myths have deep resonances with us today.

The Adam and Eve story, I think, is about the dawning of human self-awareness. Guilt and shame are an inevitable consequence. The serpent is often a symbol of change and transformation, (not necessarily evil).

There are human psychological truths to consider in this myth about the sources of our suffering in going from animal to human awareness, as well from childhood to adulthood.

Truth is not just about facts! That is the mistake the creationists make also.

Crunchy Cat dismantled each one with ease.

LOL, I must have missed that post!

The Mythological Argument: Ancient people made their own gods and modern people don't. Since ancient man was wrong and modern man is right then God is real.

Was ancient medicine "wrong" or was it a forerunner of modern medicine? Same with gods... We just refine what we believe in the light of what we know!

 

[earth]

That is only part of their possible truth however. I think myths are told and retold because they hold psychological truths, which are relevant today (see below).

You take a very literal attitude to truth earth! Myths are important because they are metaphors for aspects of life - i.e. psychological truths.

The Adam and Eve story, I think, is about the dawning of human self-awareness. Guilt and shame are an inevitable consequence. The serpent is often a symbol of change and transformation, (not necessarily evil).

There are human psychological truths to consider in this myth about the sources of our suffering in going from animal to human awareness, as well from childhood to adulthood.

Truth is not just about facts! That is the mistake the creationists make also.

Myth is more like superstitious beliefs allowing the imagination to run wild. Superstition is not much of guide, IMO. Myth is a fable that was told by those without knowledge of actuality. Today we call made up stories fables or fairytales. In the past myths became the truth representing reality while at the same time lacking evidence. If one desires to call fables/myths based in superstition truth then superstition is the guide and not reality. Myths are misleading notions causing fear in some cases. I don’t put much stock in myths described as truth. Myths sometimes cause people to think and behave irrationally especially when interconnected to Gods/religion.


Truth according to the dictionary.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

Myth:
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

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!

I am not aware of any scientific theories that are circular. The theory of evolution describes and observable phenomena.

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

"Why" questions are broken down into two different types of questions depending on their context. Questions of intent and questions of how. There is no indication the how question is valid and the intent question requires a sapient super-life from (for which there is no evidence of).

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

Some branches of theoretical physics try to model all reality (ex. M-Theory) but they are not trying to answer the question of "how is there anything at all" and they are certainly not trying to answer the question "what is the intent behind there being anything at all".

The argument works the same if you use another word - but I can't think of one (can you?).

Sure. Try "Caused".

"Created" does not here imply a Creator, only a "creation" - something that is the original product of unknown processes.

In the English language, the word "created" must be preceded by a modifier that determines the context of what the creator is. For example. David created a boat (David -a sapient entity- is the creator). The sun created lots of heat (the sun -a non-sapient entity- is the creator). When the modifier is ommitted, the default interpretation is a sapient entity and I think that most dictionaries will back that up. That's often why creationists omit the modifier.

Why am I not surprised?

Because you're a feakin' dog!

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:

For something to be a possibility means it has to be a probability. When the evidence shows the probability being null then there is no possibility.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat dismantled each one with ease.

Well-done, sir.

:m:

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Myth is more like superstitious beliefs allowing the imagination to run wild. Superstition is not much of guide, IMO. Myth is a fable that was told by those without knowledge of actuality. Today we call made up stories fables or fairytales. In the past myths became the truth representing reality while at the same time lacking evidence. If one desires to call fables/myths based in superstition truth then superstition is the guide and not reality. Myths are misleading notions causing fear in some cases. I don’t put much stock in myths described as truth. Myths sometimes cause people to think and behave irrationally especially when interconnected to Gods/religion.

So, was Freud being "superstitious" when he coined the "Oedipus complex" as an observed psychological phenomenon?

I think you are confusing superstition with myth, earth. They are not the same. Superstition is e.g. "not stepping on the cracks in the pavement"! That is totally not a "myth" e.g. the story of Pandora's jar, or Hercules fight with the Hydra.

From www.thefreedictionary.com) Superstition is:
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.

Myths are like parables... told and retold, because they hold some interest for us as stories. All human cultures have their own mythological stories. Their purpose is the transmission of cultural norms passed down the generations through stories in a culture's oral tradition.

In the Genesis story, God made the word in 7 days, which defines our week. He spoke things into existence, which configured our preference for words (rather than say - art or music) to communicate important ideas. He gave us "dominion over the earth", which has probably given us a mindset that has allowed us to carve up the planet (with unfortunate consequences)!

To see them as attemps at factual explanation is to miss the point entirely. Even if they were answers to questions like "where do we come from", their factuality is irrelevant to their purpose, which is the transmission of culture, and the communication of psychological truths about ourselves that help us to navigate existence.

Otherwise, why would all human cultures develop myths, and pass them down the generations? Why are they still important in modernity in the thinking of people like Freud, Jung, Camus etc?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I am not aware of any scientific theories that are circular. The theory of evolution describes and observable phenomena.

I'm playing really - Douglas Adams (atheist) develops a nice theory in "The Salmon of Doubt" that all great truths are circular, and therefore self evident. He summarises evolution as "Those organisms best adapted to survive, survive." I suppose it's like all mathematical formulae are tautological.

To get serious... I'm not convinced the argument is circular, though it is interesting that you raise that because I think the original OA may be circular. The word "God" I think confuses the argument. Try this....


1. "Nature" is defined as being "Life"
2. Life incorporates every existing and every possible lifeform as diverse manifestations of its nature.
3. "Life" cannot (by definition) be less than any of its component manifestations.
4. Therefore if any lifeforms exists, life must exist also.
5. I exist as a lifeform.
6. Therefore life (Nature) exists.

Circular argument or not?

I gotta go Cat.
However, your points deserve a full response, so I look forward to replying to the rest later…

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Part 2....

"Why" questions are broken down into two different types of questions depending on their context. Questions of intent and questions of how. There is no indication the how question is valid and the intent question requires a sapient super-life from (for which there is no evidence of).

"Why is there anything at all?" sounds a very valid question to me! It may not have an answer but why do you believe that the how question is not valid?
(Is it a "How" question or "question of intent" by the way?)

Some branches of theoretical physics try to model all reality (ex. M-Theory) but they are not trying to answer the question of "how is there anything at all" and they are certainly not trying to answer the question "what is the intent behind there being anything at all".

Perhaps because it is beyond the epistemological capability of science...

There may be no answer as yet, but if someone came up with a theory as to how the universe/multiverse came to be (e.g. Some sort of fractal inflation process etc.) - would that not be legitimate 'physics'? Take that to the vanishing point, and you have the question "why is there anything at all?"

Sure. Try "Caused".

Ah, but do you know the universe WAS caused? Caused by what - is the obvious question? (another traditional argument for the existence of God as 'necessary first cause' I recall!)

In the English language, the word "created" must be preceded by a modifier that determines the context of what the creator is. For example. David created a boat (David -a sapient entity- is the creator). The sun created lots of heat (the sun -a non-sapient entity- is the creator). When the modifier is ommitted, the default interpretation is a sapient entity and I think that most dictionaries will back that up. That's often why creationists omit the modifier.

We are getting off track, onto semantics here Cat. However, I disagree: "Lots of heat was created" does not imply a sapient entity as a creator. "A few sparks were created too" likewise.

However, this is all totally irrelevant as the Teleological argument works equally well with 'created' or 'caused', or 'came into being' or 'shortly after the Big Bang'!! It's a distraction, not an objection to the argument!

Because you're a feakin' dog!

LOL. Where's the mouse!?

For something to be a possibility means it has to be a probability. When the evidence shows the probability being null then there is no possibility.

What evidence!? Even Dawkins does not think the probability of God's existence is zero! (see "The God Delusion").

 

[swarm]

Even Dawkins does not think the probability of God's existence is zero! (see "The God Delusion").

Dawkins is trying to too hard to be nice about it.

 

[swarm]

1. "Nature" is defined as being "Life"
6. Therefore life (Nature) exists.

Circular argument or not?

The middle part is irrelevant. 1 and 6 are a tautology. There really isn't any argument. You are just saying A is A therefore A is A.

However Nature traditionally encompasses everything including what is not currently alive so 1 and 6 are false.

2. Life incorporates every existing and every possible lifeform as diverse manifestations of its nature.

So... life is everything alive. another tautology and "alive" is abit fuzzy on the edges.

3. "Life" cannot (by definition) be less than any of its component manifestations.

I'm not sure this actually means anything. You might rephrase.

4. Therefore if any lifeforms exists, life must exist also.

So if any balls exist, all balls exist? Um, so?

5. I exist as a lifeform.

Yay. A straight forward statement!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I'm glad you and Cat are having a go at this swarm. Your intellectual critique of it is good. I should perhaps add that I'm not totally convinced myself by these proofs, however, they do express an interesting rationalisation of belief in God.

The middle part is irrelevant. 1 and 6 are a tautology. There really isn't any argument. You are just saying A is A therefore A is A.

However Nature traditionally encompasses everything including what is not currently alive so 1 and 6 are false.

I'm saying Nature = Life, which is A = B, not A = A (Nature = Nature)

OK, fair second point swarm. I'm trying to fit it into the form of the Ontological argument, to see how it works - and probably not doing a good job. So yes, you are right - Nature does normally include non-living things. Maybe "Biological Nature" or "Biosphere" or some other word would work better? (see below - I've reformulated the proof)

2. Life incorporates every existing and every possible lifeform as diverse manifestations of its nature.

So... life is everything alive. another tautology and "alive" is abit fuzzy on the edges.

It's a refining of the definition of this word "Life" to include all life-forms (fuzzy or otherwise), just as "Supreme Being" was defined as incorporating all possible and existing beings.

3. "Life" cannot (by definition) be less than any of its component manifestations.

I'm not sure this actually means anything. You might rephrase.

Again it probably suffers from being squeezed into the form of the OA. It means roughly the same as 4. - It could be rephrased as:

3. "Life", cannot have less existence than any of it's constituent life-forms.

4. Therefore if any lifeforms exists, life must exist also.

So if any balls exist, all balls exist? Um, so?

More like: if any balls exist - then "balls" exist.

OK, here’s the modified argument, in the light of your points:

Proof of the existence of Biological Nature:

1. "Biological Nature" is defined as being "Life"
2. Life is defined as every existing and every possible life-form.
3. Life, cannot have less existence than any of its constituent life-forms.
4. Therefore if any life-forms exists, Life must exist also (e.g. on Mars).
5. I exist as a life-form.
6. Therefore Life (Biological Nature) exists.

I think you are onto something with “balls” - the argument depends on defining "Life" as a set containing all life-forms. If any member of the set exists then the set exists. e.g. We could say "Life" exists on Mars, only if we discover at least one existing life-form on Mars.

With God, it is the intuition that all "beings" are a part of some greater Being -called God, that feeds the argument. If you don't have that intuition, then it is a meaningless category - just a name for a set containing all beings, like 'population'.

 

[swarm]

I'm saying Nature = Life, which is A = B, not A = A (Nature = Nature)

Well except you define them as synonyms ""Nature" is defined as being "Life"."

I would say "Nature equates with Life." For A = B. But I'm not claiming any great shakes as a logician so I'm open to being corrected here. But really "Life is a subset of Nature" would be more accurate.

It's a refining of the definition of this word "Life" to include all life-forms (fuzzy or otherwise), just as "Supreme Being" was defined as incorporating all possible and existing beings.

I think you need to establish that the super set is a thing in and of itself (Gaia? but that would just be earth instead of Life) first since that is not always the case. Nails is the superset of a nail, but it is not a particular thing in and of itself. Me is a superset of my cells, and is a thing in and of itself. Also you then need to show a necessary correlation between how Life is and how god is.

3. "Life", cannot have less existence than any of it's constituent life-forms.

I'm not sure this is a sustainable claim due to the issues I mention above.

Proof of the existence of Biological Nature:

1. "Biological Nature" is defined as being "Life"
2. Life is defined as every existing [and every possible life-form.] - I'm not sure you can sustain that possible life-forms are actually existing
3. Life, cannot have less existence than any of its constituent life-forms. - you need to establish Life is a thing in and of itself
4. Therefore if any life-forms exists, Life must exist also [(e.g. on Mars).] - you haven't established life as a necessary universal effect. i.e. It may exist, but not necessarily on Mars.
5. I exist as a life-form.
6. Therefore Life (Biological Nature) exists.[/B]

I would go more with something like...

I exist and I am alive.
Anything alive is a living thing
Life is the class of all living things
Any class which has at least one object is not null
therefore Life exists as a non null class.

But I don't see that this will get you more than just god as a concept, which is pretty much acceptible even to atheists.

We could say "Life" exists on Mars, only if and [only if] we discover at least one existing life-form on Mars.

So god exists if and only if we find at least one god in the universe.

I don't think you'll get many objections to that as a premise, its defining what exactly a "god" is and filling out the set to n=1 which gets hairy.

With God, it is the intuition that all "beings" are a part of some greater Being -called God, that feeds the argument.

See this is problematic for a number of reasons. It sounds more like Jung's collective unconscious or the Buddhist "Buddha nature;" neither of which are gods or even conscious, per se. Also most, particularly most non new age, definitions of god make her out as a distinct being which is both wholly seperate and wholly seperable from other consciousnesses (allowing for hell). Then there is the issue of hard dualism and trying to treat consciousness as a thing in and of itself.

If you don't have that intuition, then it is a meaningless category - just a name for a set containing all beings, like 'population'.

If it is not a null set, then the member should be demonstrable. Just like you can point to the people in population, but you can find a single unicorn in unicorns.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I would say "Nature equates with Life." For A = B. But I'm not claiming any great shakes as a logician so I'm open to being corrected here. But really "Life is a subset of Nature" would be more accurate.

Probably true. "Biological Nature" works better. However, as you say this whole premise is probably redundant in this case, whereas it is a necessary step for the God="Supreme Being" argument.

I think you need to establish that the super set is a thing in and of itself (Gaia? but that would just be earth instead of Life) first since that is not always the case. Nails is the superset of a nail, but it is not a particular thing in and of itself. Me is a superset of my cells, and is a thing in and of itself. Also you then need to show a necessary correlation between how Life is and how god is.

I think you are on to something here swarm. However, a bacteria would encounter 'you' as just a collection of cells and never realise the overall complex co-ordinated entity of which your cells are a part. I think belief in God is much the same - which is what this argument is trying to demonstrate. It's seeing a meaningful overall co-ordinating pattern - or not.

I'm not sure this is a sustainable claim due to the issues I mention above.

It doesn't prove there is an overall co-ordinating pattern - you are right, only the existence of the set of all lifeforms (aka Life) or all beings (aka God). I think it is therefore like trying to prove the existence of 'Society' or a 'tune' as a valid concept. You either hear the notes of e.g. Stockhausen's "Stimmung" as a tune or else as just a random collection of notes. The famous 'pile of bricks' is either art (called Equivalent VIII), or just 'a pile of bricks'. God (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder!

I would go more with something like...

I exist and I am alive.
Anything alive is a living thing
Life is the class of all living things
Any class which has at least one object is not null
therefore Life exists as a non null class.

But I don't see that this will get you more than just god as a concept, which is pretty much acceptible even to atheists.

I think to make it work with "God", you need to add an additional line (P4) to link the class with 'God':

P1. I exist and am conscious
P2. Anything that has consciousness has 'Being'.
P3. 'Being' is the class of which all beings are a part.
P4. God is 'Being'.
P5. Any class which has at least one object is not null
C1. Therefore 'Being' (aka God) exists as a non null class.

Whatdoyouthink?

So god exists if and only if we find at least one god in the universe.
I don't think you'll get many objections to that as a premise, its defining what exactly a "god" is and filling out the set to n=1 which gets hairy.

No, the Ontological argument does not mention 'gods' at all - it's at least one 'being', if you accept the set 'Being' is synonymous with God! :shrug:

See this is problematic for a number of reasons. It sounds more like Jung's collective unconscious or the Buddhist "Buddha nature;" neither of which are gods or even conscious, per se. Also most, particularly most non new age, definitions of god make her out as a distinct being which is both wholly seperate and wholly seperable from other consciousnesses (allowing for hell). Then there is the issue of hard dualism and trying to treat consciousness as a thing in and of itself.

Yes... but then a collection of cells makes up you as a distinct entity. The mistake some theists and atheists alike make is to see God as 'another person'. The fault is in the metaphor, which is always limited!

If it is not a null set, then the member should be demonstrable. Just like you can point to the people in population, but you can find a single unicorn in unicorns.

Unicorns is (probably) a null set. 'Life' is not. God as 'Being' is not.

 

[swarm]

a bacteria would encounter 'you' as just a collection of cells and never realise the overall complex co-ordinated entity of which your cells are a part.

It would be "able" to note that as far as it could sense was a wall of conjoined cells with all the same markers with a means of coordinated action.

I think belief in God is much the same - which is what this argument is trying to demonstrate. It's seeing a meaningful overall co-ordinating pattern - or not.

That would be pantheist, but I don't see the need to step beyond naturalism and posit anything supernatural.

the existence of the set of all lifeforms (aka Life) or all beings (aka God). I think it is therefore like trying to prove the existence of 'Society' or a 'tune' as a valid concept.

I would say "society" or even "collective" is a far more accurate term than "god."

You either hear ... as a tune or else as just a random collection of notes. The famous 'pile of bricks' is either art ...or just 'a pile of bricks'. God ...

I already said god as just a concept isn't an issue.

I think to make it work with "God", you need to add an additional line (P4) to link the class with 'God':

You didn't show that god is existent and conscious.

P1. I exist and am conscious
P2. Anything which is existent and consciousness is a being.
P3. All beings belong to the class of Beings.
P4. God is not known to be existent and cannot be shown to be conscious
C1. therefor I am a being and a member of the class of Beings
C2. therefor god is not a being and not a member of the class of Beings.

The thing to remember about logic is it doesn't tell you anything new. It just shows relationships and aspects of what you already know that you may not have realized. It also lets you show a conclusion is true and valid.

You are trying to use it to make god the concept "real" which is one thing logic can't do. It doesn't matter what you think logic is showing you. If it isn't there, it just isn't there and your logic is in error if it says it is.

 

[scifes]

I am not aware of any scientific theories that are circular. The theory of evolution describes and observable phenomena.

science is circular:
the number zero exists..proof: the number zero exists.
a scientist thinks that's fine.

god exists..proof: god exists.
a normal person thinks that's fine.


do you feel more aware now?

 

[spidergoat]

The number zero does not exist. It is a symbol that they use to construct models of how they think the universe works.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

It would be "able" to note that as far as it could sense was a wall of conjoined cells with all the same markers with a means of coordinated action.

How could it know that "You" were also the platelets and red blood cells floating past (with very different markers), the source of a change in glucose levels and a macrophage bearing down on it?

That would be pantheist, but I don't see the need to step beyond naturalism and posit anything supernatural.

Actually I'm a panentheist! There is equally no need to step beyond a sequence of notes to hear a tune. Our finest music - the product of genius - Mozart, Stravinsky, etc. is all just different sequence of sound frequencies to an oscilloscope, or to a sheep.

I would say "society" or even "collective" is a far more accurate term than "god."

...accurate? Accurate about what?

I already said god as just a concept isn't an issue.

Everything we describe is a concept.

You didn't show that god is existent and conscious.

P1. I exist and am conscious
P2. Anything which is existent and consciousness is a being.
P3. All beings belong to the class of Beings.
P4. God is not known to be existent and cannot be shown to be conscious
C1. therefor I am a being and a member of the class of Beings
C2. therefor god is not a being and not a member of the class of Beings.

The thing to remember about logic is it doesn't tell you anything new. It just shows relationships and aspects of what you already know that you may not have realized. It also lets you show a conclusion is true and valid.

You are trying to use it to make god the concept "real" which is one thing logic can't do. It doesn't matter what you think logic is showing you. If it isn't there, it just isn't there and your logic is in error if it says it is.

You are letting your prejudice blind you again. I will make one minor correction, but otherwise it is quite logical, if you accept the various premises.

P1. I exist and am conscious
P2. Anything that has consciousness is a being.
P3. 'Being' is the class of which all beings are a part.
P4. God is 'Being'.
P5. Any class which has at least one object is not null
C1. Therefore 'Being' (aka God) exists as a non null class.

...try it without God (which seems to create a red mist for you!)

P1. I exist and have property C
P2. Anything that has property C is a 'b'.
P3. B is the class of which all 'b's are a part.
P4. A = B.
P5. Any class which has at least one object is not null
C1. Therefore B (aka A) exists as a non null class.