Is it possible to prove the existence of God?

[VISTREL]

Let's assume that by word "God" we mean the master or creator of everything including itself. Now, if such GOD existed how could it ever be confident that it is the origin and is of everything. Perhaps such GOD would have at least a thought that there may be hidden realms out of it's perception and control. So no matter how powerful and all-knowing a God may be there is no guarantee that it is the essence of everything. Also, the concept "all knowing" maybe nothing but utopia in the end. Therefore, proving that something is God is futile.

 

[DaveC426913]

This has been discussed many times here.

One thing that you're tripping up on is that, in order to argue it, you must first specify your definition of God. For example, you have defined him as omniscient and then refuted that.

 

[Kajahtava]

I've once proposed this thought experiment though:

Assume there was a god which was omniscient and omnipotent and that It could do all, and knew all, we shall call this god the meta-god hereafter.

The meta-god created a being that was not omnipotent or omniscient, but close, its powers were only limited by its own imagination, it was not aware of its limited imagination, this being we call 'God', hereafter.

God ended up creating Earth and a book we call the 'bible' in which it claimed a number of things, such as being omnipotent and omniscient and being the first.

God was not lying, he simply couldn't know.

So, even by assuming the benevolence of God and absolutely truthfulness, we can still not exclude that he was not the origin of all.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Friendly reminder to read the rules so this doesn't get closed :)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

 

[DaveC426913]

So, even by assuming the benevolence of God and absolutely truthfulness, we can still not exclude that he was not the origin of all.

It still comes down to you defining God as being omniscient.

Once you define God as omniscient, there are a myriad ways to make logical inconsistencies; that part is easy.

But who says God is omniscient? I mean, we can claim he is, sure. But our claim does not make it so, which means our claim does not put him in a logical paradox.

All you are doing is showing that a specific, traditional image of God is problematic. It does not demonstrate anything about whether there exists some Creator with some undetermined properties.

 

[DaveC426913]

Friendly reminder to read the rules so this doesn't get closed :)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

Good point. But where exactly is the line?

There is no discussion of religion here (except indirectly perhaps, in how some people are defining God). It seems to be simply a philosophical/logical discussion about a hypothetical subject.

I don't actually know where, according to the rules, the line is that the discussion is skirting. (That being said, I have no illusions that, some time in the next dozens posts or so, that line will be unambiguously crossed by someone. )

 

[Insanity]

There is one task an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being could not do...

 

[Dembadon]

There is one task an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being could not do...

How does one know that a task exists which an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being could not perform?

 

[jobyts]

There is one task an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient being could not do...

Which one is it?

creating that heavy stone? changing the value of Pi? healing amputees?

 

[Insanity]

getting lost.

The Twilight Zone, 1985, I of Newton

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, yeah. We know omnipotence is a paradoxical concept.

That does not prove God can't exist. It just proves you can't box him in with human- created logic or human-created definitions.

 

[Kajahtava]

Let's define god as a this Fedora DVD lying in front of me, surely it exists? Q.E.D.

Debating the existence of things you first have to define before you can get started is absurd, it just shows people care more about words than about meaning.

[PLAIN]http://thisdomainisirrelevant.net/910.png

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's define god as a this Fedora DVD lying in front of me, surely it exists? Q.E.D.

Debating the existence of things you first have to define before you can get started is absurd, it just shows people care more about words than about meaning.

I'm not sure whose argument you're objecting to, mine or the OP's.


Either way, how on Earth is it possible to discuss something if the people do not agree on what it is they're discussing? How would you know they agree?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Therefore, proving that something is God is futile.

Correct. It's turtles all the way down.

 

[jobyts]

Yeah, yeah. We know omnipotence is a paradoxical concept.

That does not prove God can't exist. It just proves you can't box him in with human- created logic or human-created definitions.

But the definitions of omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient are also within the human logic frame.

 

[Dembadon]

... Debating the existence of things you first have to define before you can get started is absurd, it just shows people care more about words than about meaning.

Emphasis/underlining mine:

Your statement implies that people actually do care about meaning. What else, then, is the definition of a word, if not its meaning?

 

[zomgwtf]

Emphasis/underlining mine:

Your statement implies that people actually do care about meaning. What else, then, is the definition of a word, if not its meaning?

I don't follow this. It means that people care more about just utilizing the word god to describe something when it "really" isn't a god. That's his point.

 

[Dembadon]

Emphasis/underlining mine:

Your statement implies that people actually do care about meaning. What else, then, is the definition of a word, if not its meaning?

I don't follow this. It means that people care more about just utilizing the word god to describe something when it "really" isn't a god. That's his point.

His following statement:

Debating the existence of things you first have to define before you can get started is absurd, it just shows people care more about words than about meaning.

Emphasis mine:

He seems to be arguing against the notion that people need to define things before they discuss them (Underlined). He then contradicts himself with the phrase in bold formatting, where he suggests that meaning in fact is important. I attempted to point out that he is, in essence, saying, "Defining things 'is absurd', people should care 'about meaning' instead." I don't know of any significant difference between the meaning of a word and its definition.

My interpretation could be incorrect; maybe he can clarify for us.

 

[zomgwtf]

No he's saying that the fact people need for people to define words before they discuss them is absurd. They shouldn't have to do this they should use a dictionary for the actually MEANING of the word...

Basically when he's saying 'define' he means people making their OWN definitions. When he says meaning he means people using the ACCEPTED definition.I think he was writing this in response to Dave's post though, not the OP.

EDIT:

Of course though, this entirely depends on the dictionary. I do agree that people shouldn't be changing definitions of words just so that they could use the same definition but... well, let's look at god for example:

Noun

* S: (n) God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)
* S: (n) deity, divinity, god, immortal (any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)
* S: (n) god (a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people) "he was a god among men"
* S: (n) idol, graven image, god (a material effigy that is worshipped) "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god That's the definitino from Princeton WordNet.

but then I have a dictionary of philosophy which defines god as being the first cause or what caused the creation of our universe. I was going to quote it but I can't find it ATM.

Using both these dictionaries though would imply you are using the word with its intended meaning. Defining it implies you are using what you think the word means on your own. I don't agree with this and I'm pretty sure that's his point.

 

[disregardthat]

It is not only God that is an ambiguous term, the very notion of "proof" is very a very ambiguous term taken out of familiar context. A proof differ in form and purpose in different contexts. "Proving Gods existence" is nonsense without a proper familiarity with what it means to "prove Gods existence".

The common notion of God is a transcendent entity. God is in some way outside the material world, not affected by the material causality. This is what makes the explanation of the meaning of "proof" in this context even more difficult. What does it mean to prove the existence of a transcendental entity? It certainly is nonsense in many forms of "proof".

Another common notion is God as a fundamentally ethical concept, and thus the need (and purpose) for positive assessment of Gods existence arise from a purely ethical basis, i.e. faith. Perhaps this is the proper way of approaching the concept of God. In a scientific context the "hypothesis" of God can easily be dismissed, but that's not necessarily all there is to it. However, one-dimensional thinking leads to clear conclusions and that certainly has its appeal for many...

As Dave points out, logical inconsistencies proves in no way the impossibility of Gods existence. In a scientific analogy: some physical objects are also intrinsically inconsistent when it comes to our way of explaining the nature of their behavior. Scientific models can often contradict each other when taken out of their respective area of accuracy even though they say something about intrinsic properties of the physical object. No one are though denying their existence.

 

[disregardthat]

No he's saying that the fact people need for people to define words before they discuss them is absurd. They shouldn't have to do this they should use a dictionary for the actually MEANING of the word...

Basically when he's saying 'define' he means people making their OWN definitions. When he says meaning he means people using the ACCEPTED definition.

Meaning is liquid as water in philosophical discussions. Terms need to be constantly redefined to clear of what context they should be interpreted. A dictionary is only illustrative. When it comes to God, a term which has more associations to itself than any other I can imagine, this becomes ever more important. Embrace the fact that words need to be redefined at all times. However, a definition is not a re-invention of the word. It is more like clearing out the appropriate boundaries of meaning in an already existing word.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

Meaning is liquid as water in philosophical discussions. Terms need to be constantly redefined to clear of what context they should be interpreted. A dictionary is only illustrative. When it comes to God, a term which has more associations to itself than any other I can imagine, this becomes ever more important. Embrace the fact that words need to be redefined at all times. However, a definition is not a re-invention of the word. It is more like clearing out the appropriate boundaries of meaning in an already existing word.

I think if we take God as a powerful being/energy/scientist/etc. who cares for this universe and the living beings, we need not ask about his origin or powers.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think if we take God as a powerful being/energy/scientist/etc. who cares for this universe and the living beings, we need not ask about his origin or powers.

Why would we not want to ask? Science is about asking. If we can't ask, it doesn't belong here.

Further, we by no means grant that a god exists - that is not a discussion for a science forum - we can only discuss the internal logic of the argument.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

Why would we not want to ask? Science is about asking. If we can't ask, it doesn't belong here.

Further, we by no means grant that a god exists - that is not a discussion for a science forum - we can only discuss the internal logic of the argument.

You are right, we can discuss only the logic part of it.

But here logic also seems to perplex us.

Even if we have united all the 4 fundamental forces into one, discovered the most fundamental particles of the universe, developed the theory of everything, deciphered the properties of the bigbang upto a time even when matter didn't come into existence,

logic would still stare us right at our face and ask the origin of the "most fundamental" things that we have discovered. If we satisfy logic with 'the (most)ⁿ basic discovery', he would be back with a grin with the same question.

I just want to say that it is somewhat contrary to logic to arrive at the origin of anything.
Nevertheless one thing is for sure - science will always be persistent in such efforts.

 

[cronxeh]

If you define god as the creator of the universe, then we are definitely not talking about religion here. To further define the concept, does god have energy or mass? If neither, then what? At any rate it is laughable to assume one has to fear god or be thankful to god in any way, shape, or form. If god exists, does universe exist? If god is part of the universe, then god does not exist, and if god is bigger than the universe then who created god? Seems it is simpler to classify god as nonexistent.

 

[Dembadon]

No he's saying that the fact people need for people to define words before they discuss them is absurd. ...

Ahh, I think I understand now; the act of defining words makes the debate about said words absurd. Although I fully disagree with his opinion, I appreciate your help in clarifying his position.

 

[apeiron]

I just want to say that it is somewhat contrary to logic to arrive at the origin of anything.
Nevertheless one thing is for sure - science will always be persistent in such efforts.

First cause is the logical inconsistency that creates an explanatory hole which needs filling.

God is some people's answer, but it is a mystical answer in that it does not offer any actual model of causality. So it is not a logical answer. There is no reason why, no chain of necessity or inevitability, involved.

You can say "god", but that does not say how. Although it would say who, what when and why - so not a complete non-answer I would have to concede. But then even that is a short-lived triumph as, as any skoolkid kno, the existence of god becomes itself demanding of a causal explanation. So then we are back to asking just not how, but who, what when and why did god's existence come to be a fact of reality?

Looking from the inside of reality, it then becomes more "logical" to just say there was no first cause - so either the universe simply sprang into existence in uncaused fashion, or it existed eternally and again exists for no causal reason.

The debate would end there - accepting existence as brute a-causal fact - except that there are other models of logic that permit the development of hierarchically-complex realities from vague initial conditions.

The metaphysician CS Peirce is a recent example of someone with a well-worked out scheme of this kind. Anaximander of Miletus was another, the earliest recorded example.

So, my argument is that if logic seems to fail you when it comes to first causes, look around for a larger model of logic, a larger model of causality.

You can resort to stuffing a god-shaped stuff in your first cause explanatory hole, or simply leave it a gaping hole. Or you can explore a logic based on self-organising development rather than mechanically cascading existence.

A logic of vagueness does not do away with all questions concerning existence, because in some sense, vagueness - the initial conditions - itself has to exist as a prior.

But it does shrink the notion of existence to its logical minimum. And that has to be some kind of better answer than the huge gaping explanatory hole left by a first causes, prime mover, style of logic.

Neither science, nor western religion, employ a logic of vagueness so it remains an unfamiliar option to most people. You have to study certain philosophers, theoretical biologists or systems scientists to hear about it.

 

[Deepak Kapur]

But it does shrink the notion of existence to its logical minimum. And that has to be some kind of better answer than the huge gaping explanatory hole left by a first causes, prime mover, style of logic.

Neither science, nor western religion, employ a logic of vagueness so it remains an unfamiliar option to most people. You have to study certain philosophers, theoretical biologists or systems scientists to hear about it.

Yes, 'shrinking' alone can help us in such a scenario. As a matter of fact 'logic of vagueness' is not present in most of religions (eastern or western). Almost all the religions don't question/talk about the origin of God. Humanbeings (leaving miniscule exceptions) hate vagueness-this is engrained in their very nature.

 

[blossom]

It is really odd that most of the people in this forum are not religious but they keep talking and discussing this subject! This means that none of them is comfortable with his/her believes. Therefore, once a thread is posted about this subject you see most of them either try to show that there is no god or trying to restrict the characteristic of god they believe in. If you don't believe why you are bothering yourself with such a thing??

The only thing I want to say to VISTREL is that it sounds very strange that you can believe in a magnificent, gorgeous and very precise universe that can exist by its own while you –neither any of us- can't believe that some pieces of wood, screws and a hammer can create a chair by their own!

Anyway, I think you have to choose your believes by yourself according to what you find suitable for you.
Good luck

 

[madness]

God for a long time was used as a way of understanding the world, and was almost taken as axiomatic. Now we tend to take the scientific method as an axiomatic way of understanding the world. These things are too fundamental to be proven or disproven, but are more of a framework or starting point.

 

[Borek]

It is really odd that most of the people in this forum are not religious but they keep talking and discussing this subject! This means that none of them is comfortable with his/her believes. Therefore, once a thread is posted about this subject you see most of them either try to show that there is no god or trying to restrict the characteristic of god they believe in. If you don't believe why you are bothering yourself with such a thing??

Yes, we do discuss these things, no, we don't feel urge to do so.

VISTREL - the original poster - has exactly three posts at the moment. I think you will easily find that most of these threads are started not by long timers, but by new arrivals (some of them just trolling). Why do PFers take part? Because they want to put some logic into discussion and to straighten the misconceptions people carry about what the science is and what it can/can't do. The that's the way we discuss things at PF.

At the same time we are just too nice to new members to ban them and close all these threads immediately, which would be probably the easiest approach.

 

[zomgwtf]

It is really odd that most of the people in this forum are not religious but they keep talking and discussing this subject! This means that none of them is comfortable with his/her believes. Therefore, once a thread is posted about this subject you see most of them either try to show that there is no god or trying to restrict the characteristic of god they believe in. If you don't believe why you are bothering yourself with such a thing??

The only thing I want to say to VISTREL is that it sounds very strange that you can believe in a magnificent, gorgeous and very precise universe that can exist by its own while you –neither any of us- can't believe that some pieces of wood, screws and a hammer can create a chair by their own!

Anyway, I think you have to choose your believes by yourself according to what you find suitable for you.
Good luck

Uh, not true at all.

I happen to be completely comfortable with my beliefs. I'm not religious and I certainly feel I can take part in discussions on god(s). I probably know more about any particular religion than a person who practices the religion.
Why bother yourself with discussions of whether or not god(s) exist? Well first of all, it's interesting. Second of all, I feel that when people bring belief in god(s) to a religious level that they should be deemed delusional and ALL discussions of existence of god point to this. Note that there has never been ANY convincing argument used to prove any religious god exists?

The universe is far from 'precise' I have no idea what that means. It's also hardly 'beautiful' do you know how deadly that **** is? Magnificent? Yeah man it is pretty awesome. Too bad we'll never travel further than a few planets away from our star.

 

[madness]

Note that there has never been ANY convincing argument used to prove any religious god exists?

I've also never seen a convincing argument that space or time exist, or that anything outside of my senses exists. As I said before, I think some things are so fundamental to a belief system that they are simply assumed. Throughout medieval times most people would think it was absurd to say that God doesn't exist.

 

[zomgwtf]

I've also never seen a convincing argument that space or time exist, or that anything outside of my senses exists. As I said before, I think some things are so fundamental to a belief system that they are simply assumed. Throughout medieval times most people would think it was absurd to say that God doesn't exist.

Uh, space and time are necessary constructs to explain phenomena. Religious gods are not and have been proven time and time again by scientific thought to not be necessary.

They are completely different constructs aside from they are both social constructs. One is necessary, one isn't.

I think the most convincing argument that space exist and is continuous is that you wake up every morning and get out of bed onto a solid floor. Sure one day it might not be there but for one thing it hasn't happened yet, and for another if it didn't exist you probably wouldn't either.

Space actually explains something observable. Time just further explains it.

 

[madness]

Uh, space and time are necessary constructs to explain phenomena.

Nope. Many people have argued that space and time don't exist. Julian Barbour recently had a talk at Perimeter where he presented his theory of physics in which time doesn't exist. He even went as far as to say "we have no evidence that length exists in nature, only angles" and that since length is unnecessary we should discard it - the exact same argument commonly used against God.

Religious gods are not and have been proven time and time again by scientific thought to not be necessary.

Yeah like space and time aren't necessary according to Barbour. Of course you are tacitly assuming that scientific thought is correct. My point was that we take the scientific method as axiomatic now, just as people used to take God as axiomatic.

I think the most convincing argument that space exist and is continuous is that you wake up every morning and get out of bed onto a solid floor. Sure one day it might not be there but for one thing it hasn't happened yet, and for another if it didn't exist you probably wouldn't either.

Well for a start, "scientific thought" generally favours discrete spacetime, not continuous. There is a whole can of worms when arguing about the existence of space and time which would completely derail this thread. For a philosophical discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time or for a physical theory look up Julian Barbour.

The point I was trying to make is that we believe many things without a "convincing argument". As I said before, God was so fundamental to peoples' worldview in medieval times that it wasn't even questioned. The second conclusion Descartes came to after "I think therefore I am" was that God must exist - after he realized he existed, that was the second most obvious thing to him.