Logical proof for the existence of God

1. God by definition is the greatest bieng concievable. Even those individuals who deny that God exists (atheists) outiside of people's minds take the word "god" to mean, among other things, "the greatest bieng concievable." Such people (atheists), then go on to deny that there is anything in external reality corresponding to the word.

therefore...

2. the atheists premise is that GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE EXTERNAL WORLD, but only as an concieved entity in people's minds.

3. it is agreed that anything existing in the external world would be greater than it would be if it merely existed as an idea in people's minds.

4. (from 2 and 3) Therefore, a greater bieng than God can be concieved, namely one that exists in the external world.

5. proposition 4 contradicts proposition 1.

6. since proposition 4 follows from propositions 2 and 3, either propositions(s) 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 must be changed to avoid this contradiction.

7. but proposition 1 is simply a definition accepted by both the theist and the atheist, and proposition 3 is granted independently of what is at issue.

therefore...

8. to avoid a contradiction, proposition 2 must be changed.

and...

9. to change proposition 2 is to deny that God is merely an idea in people's minds..

10. therefore, GOD EXISTS IN THE EXTERNAL WORLD, and is not merely an idea in people's minds.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Arguments for or against this approach?

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

3. it is agreed that anything existing in the external world would be greater than it would be if it merely existed as an idea in people's minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

This premise looks faulty.

It looks like you might be able to convince a jury of twelve people that there is a god this way, but proving it? I dunno about that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Prevaricator]

define the technical term "greatness"

What if the "greatest" being that exists was not responsible for creating the universe? Doesn't that negate the idea of "god" right there?

[oreogod]

well I suppose its still a nice fantasy. Not something I buy though.

[udontknowmickey]

I believe in a Christian God, but for the sake of argument I will demonstrate why I disagree with this proof.

[ QUOTE ]

1. God by definition is the greatest bieng concievable. Even those individuals who deny that God exists (atheists) outiside of people's minds take the word "god" to mean, among other things, "the greatest bieng concievable." Such people (atheists), then go on to deny that there is anything in external reality corresponding to the word.


[/ QUOTE ]

This presupposes a definition of "greatest." What if my definition was myself? Therefore, I am God.

[ QUOTE ]


2. the atheists premise is that GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE EXTERNAL WORLD, but only as an concieved entity in people's minds.

3. it is agreed that anything existing in the external world would be greater than it would be if it merely existed as an idea in people's minds.


[/ QUOTE ]

You probably should run it like a proof by contradiction. Assume that God does not exist in the external world as opposed to Atheists believe...

Define external world. Is the number 2 part of the "external world"?

There is no justification for 3. Who agrees? Do you know that? How does people agreeing with it make it true?

[oreogod]

Guess its official.

link (http://www.400monkeys.com/God/)

[snowden719]

1. Pegasus by definition is the greatest horse conceivable. Even those individuals who deny that God exists (atheists) outiside of people's minds take the word pegasus to mean, among other things, "the greatest horse concievable." ( seeing as he can fly and serves other horses in general)Such people (atheists), then go on to deny that there is anything in external reality corresponding to the word.

therefore...

2. the atheists premise is that pegasus DOES NOT EXIST IN THE EXTERNAL WORLD, but only as an concieved entity in people's minds.

3. it is agreed that anything existing in the external world would be greater than it would be if it merely existed as an idea in people's minds.

4. (from 2 and 3) Therefore, a greater horse than pegasus can be concieved, namely one that exists in the external world.

5. proposition 4 contradicts proposition 1.

6. since proposition 4 follows from propositions 2 and 3, either propositions(s) 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 must be changed to avoid this contradiction.

7. but proposition 1 is simply a definition accepted by both the theist and the atheist, and proposition 3 is granted independently of what is at issue.

therefore...

8. to avoid a contradiction, proposition 2 must be changed.

and...

9. to change proposition 2 is to deny that pegasus is merely an idea in people's minds and in literature..

10. therefore, pegasus EXISTS IN THE EXTERNAL WORLD, and is not merely an idea in people's minds. Dibs on getting the first ride now that I have proven that pegasus exists

The question of the existence of God is a physical question,not a logical,philisophical question.
Forget the mental masturbation,where's the physical evidence?
Shooby /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
The question of the existence of God is a physical question,not a logical,philisophical question.
Forget the mental masturbation,where's the physical evidence?
Shooby /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I don't know if I believe in God. But, from what I know, is that if there is a God, it is not a physical being. One weak proof (can't remember which philosopher) is that all physical matter eventually decays and is destroyed. God, by definition cannot ever not exist. Hence, God is not a physical being.

craig

[Piers]

ROTFLMOL good one /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in a Christian God, but for the sake of argument I will demonstrate why I disagree with this proof.

[ QUOTE ]

1. God by definition is the greatest bieng concievable. Even those individuals who deny that God exists (atheists) outiside of people's minds take the word "god" to mean, among other things, "the greatest bieng concievable." Such people (atheists), then go on to deny that there is anything in external reality corresponding to the word.


[/ QUOTE ]

This presupposes a definition of "greatest." What if my definition was myself? Therefore, I am God.

[ QUOTE ]


2. the atheists premise is that GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE EXTERNAL WORLD, but only as an concieved entity in people's minds.

3. it is agreed that anything existing in the external world would be greater than it would be if it merely existed as an idea in people's minds.


[/ QUOTE ]

You probably should run it like a proof by contradiction. Assume that God does not exist in the external world as opposed to Atheists believe...

Define external world. Is the number 2 part of the "external world"?

There is no justification for 3. Who agrees? Do you know that? How does people agreeing with it make it true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that for a logical argument like this to work, there needs to be a certain of amount of agreement beforehand about what the term God is taken to mean. Granted yes, if you really wanted to, you could substitute almost anything for what you believe the term God to mean. A theist could take God to mean "an apple" or "an orange", and easily do the same thing i just did, given that there is also an atheist that takes the word to mean "an apple" or "an orange" as well, though denies that such things exist in an external reality.

Proposition three could be argued for days, though i believe for the most part it is true. Take it in its simplest terms, what is more powerful, a bolt of ligtning or the idea of a bolt of lightning?

[ QUOTE ]
define the technical term "greatness"

What if the "greatest" being that exists was not responsible for creating the universe? Doesn't that negate the idea of "god" right there?

[/ QUOTE ]

and the idea of "god" is...? The term "greatest being concievable" does not neccessarily imply the creator of the universe. so no, my idea of god is not negated by the assumption that the "greatest being conceivable" must have created the universe, thus this detail is not included in the proof.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


Proposition three could be argued for days, though i believe for the most part it is true. Take it in its simplest terms, what is more powerful, a bolt of ligtning or the idea of a bolt of lightning?


[/ QUOTE ]

But now you're presupposing a defition of "powerful"

But that doesn't change my issue with "external world." Does the number 2 exist in the external world? Is it powerful? What if it did exist in the external world? Would it be stronger?

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
define the technical term "greatness"

What if the "greatest" being that exists was not responsible for creating the universe? Doesn't that negate the idea of "god" right there?

[/ QUOTE ]

and the idea of "god" is...? The term "greatest being concievable" does not neccessarily imply the creator of the universe. so no, my idea of god is not negated by the assumption that the "greatest being conceivable" must have created the universe, thus this detail is not included in the proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you dont define god and greatness and other technical terms then the whole argument is arbitrary and meaningless.

and lets assume for a second that humans are the only species in the entire universe. Does that imply that one of the humans, namely the "greatest" one, is god?

[HavanaBanana]

This thread should have been very very short.

ToT

[ QUOTE ]

3. it is agreed that anything existing in the external world would be greater than it would be if it merely existed as an idea in people's minds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly the stupidest statement made by you today. And that's saying something.

[ QUOTE ]
what is more powerful, a bolt of ligtning or the idea of a bolt of lightning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected. THAT is the stupidest statement you've made today.

You've proven that a god who physically exists is conceivable, but we already knew that.

[spaminator101]

was Jesus not a man at one point

[spaminator101]

while i am a christian myself i beleive this is a way to turn people from God instead of for Him
this makes us sound desperate
if you are doing this to evangilize i think you really screwed up

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
the atheists premise is that GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE EXTERNAL WORLD, but only as an concieved entity in people's minds.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the things that always gets me mad about common and dictionary definitions of atheism is they aren't correct. An athiest is a person without a belief in god, God, gods, or divinity. It's purely semantic, but has some important implications.

There are of course hard atheists that state GOD DOES NOT EXIST. However proofing something doesn't exist is impossible and a waste of time. Unless it's something like a square cirlce.

The discripancy between what is atheism is and what it thought to be causes the arguement that without God there can be no Good and Evil. However Good and Evil are ideas, they are certainly elusive and never perfect. But truth can be gleamed form unknowable ideals, in this case a absolute morality. In addition to being great plot lines for stories and movies, absolute Good and Evil can be used to determine implication for correct actions.

The whole point for the original post is to show how arbitrary and gimmicky this whole argument truly is. This is actually called the "Ontological Argument For the Existence of God" written by St. Anselm, archbishop of canterbury, in the twelth century. I needed to write a paper concerning the flaws of this type of argument hence why i played devil's advocate. obviously the argument is faulty because it is so ambiguous in its wording. most anything could be proved using this kind of gimmick. thanks for the help and responses.

SB

[Subfallen]

Lollers, here (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mode/ModeDeLo.htm) you go.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
while i am a christian myself i beleive this is a way to turn people from God instead of for Him
this makes us sound desperate
if you are doing this to evangilize i think you really screwed up

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. At the same time I am not religious...and while not completely atheist I prefer agnostic. each person belives what they want...but for me, setting aside whether God truly exists or not, mass religion scares me.

I think some people hide behind religion and use it to satisfy their pressing need to judge others. I havent read the bible in quite some time, yes I have read it, but isnt the idea that Jesus set up is to be supporting, offer shelter, advice, be non-judemental..etc. Example...there is a religious group rallying out side of an abortion clinic, being loud, judging ppl that go in and are coming out...telling them they will burn in hell, maybe even throwing rocks at them. Would Jesus be outside w/ them or inside consoling the person that just had to go through something horrible.

I stay away from religion for these reasons, its misunderstood by most ppl. Most ppl use it as a flag to wave when they disagree w/ something. Anyway, came across this site of quotes from ppl, that is intresting, while a little freaky.

link (http://www.reandev.com/taliban/)

I think this is my favorite quote:



"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
---George Bush Sr. (now ex-President of the United States)

[oreogod]

# ARGUMENT FROM BEER (I)
(1) "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Ben Franklin
(2) Beer exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

# ARGUMENT FROM BEER (II)
(1) Christian: Whatever you believe in is your god.
(2) Atheist: I believe I'll have another beer.
(3) Ha ha.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


From 300 proofs of gods existence (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)