I'm thinking about posting this to a few more religious forums, but I'd just like to hear what people have to say on here.

So, playing Devil's Advocate, and hopefully without a bunch of straw man replies, what is the best argument for God you've heard? And, if you really can't stand it, why is that argument not good enough?

My favorite is Descartes' Ontological argument- but since I don't have a clear and distinct perception of God, this one still isn't enough for me.

Excited to hear replies!

Views: 2282

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Mark - So your definition of "omnipotent" is a mathematical one, not found in any lexicon, dictionary or thesaurus, is that what you're saying?

@Mark - So your definition of "omnipotent" is a mathematical one, not found in any lexicon, dictionary or thesaurus, is that what you're saying?


How convenient for you.

"5+8=13 alone, all by itself did not prove there were two piles of blocks, moved together to make 13 blocks."

This.  A thousand times.  

No matter how rigorous and correct the mathematical proof, it ultimately is only proof that the math is correct.  If none of the components of the formula actually have some tie or basis in real empirical evidence, then the formula (no matter how mathematically correct it may be!) has no ties whatsoever to reality.

All you've done is prove that you could pull up some arbitrary values, plug them into a complex formula, and solve that formula.  And presto; God!


As another poster also points out, the axioms you're using to prove God exists can simply be applied to the universe itself/"nature".  There is nothing in the proof that says that a God is necessary, because one isn't.  Now, perhaps, one might say, "but the universe IS God!", but we simply shrug off the need to add that extra, arbitrary (and rather silly) layer.

Mark, am not a mathematician so I will not go into asking you what this or that axiom means. I have read your last comment where you talk about maths having proved that god exist and looked at the link you have provided. 

In it I found this short synopsis, maybe there is more

  • The G Proof — how the Axioms and Predicate Logic are used to rigorously prove a phenomenon exists that:
    1. creates itself — i.e. it causes itself,
    2. is omnipotent — i.e. it causes everything else, and
    3. is unique — i.e. it is the one and only such phenomenon.

Such a phenomenon can only be what is commonly known as “God.”

My first question is why must this be god and not the universe or rather matter? The universe is unique, I mean tell me if there is any other thing you know as unique as the universe?

It is omnipotent and I will add omnipresent. I want you to tell me where Nature is not present at all times and where it's laws doesn't apply?

Creates itself- am waiting for you to show me how to annihilate matter. When you do that, maybe you can then show me how to create matter.

As a general comment, I don't think there is anything new in this argument that is different from the Ontological argument which it tries to prove. The mistake this does is you define god into existence and then continue to insist that god exists. I don't know if you like philosophy, maybe you should read Kant's critique of pure reason where he shows the weakness of this proofs for god though at the end he says he believes in god which I don't know how he gets there.

I think ontological arguments are best because, unlike most arguments for God, they are completely and totally divorced from empirical examination. They are pure verbal logic.

From Wikipedia:

It is widely accepted that the first ontological argument was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in 1078 in his Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.

And there are lots and lots of ontological arguments, so Descartes is just one among legion. Ontological arguments are tough for non-logicians to deal with (and philosophers generally are logicians). As a result, one rarely finds anyone other than a schooled philosopher having much success dealing with them.

The main problem with ontological arguments, though, is that they are philosophical magic tricks. Pulling rabbits out of hats.

However, once one simply asks, "Can one derive existence from mere words alone with no actual observations of real states of affairs?" (the answer being a resounding "no"), their force tends to evaporate.

The First-Order Predicate Logic proof that God exists, as discussed in my comment above, is patently *NOT* an ontological argument, is WHOLLY UNRELATED to any ontological argument, and it has NONE of the vulnerabilities suffered by ontological arguments.  See the title of my comment, "RIGOROUS MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS (NOT the Ontological argument)."

Well, I wasn't talking about you. I was answering the question raised by the OP. But I'll tell you why your "proof" isn't very motivating.

Try to explain it right here in terms anyone can understand. If you can't do that, I'm not even interested in hearing it. That was Einstein's standard and it's good enough for me. 

The idea that "the proof" consists of nine hours of videos only a mathematician can really understand is ridiculous. Can't you see that?

It's akin to the people here whose argument consists of "You have to read this book I read." No, explain it so I can understand it in a few phrases or go away and figure out how to do that.

On top of that, it's useless. A waste of time. A proof nobody is going to bother to examine. It's so typical. "If you can't follow the argument, just take it on faith." That's what it comes down to, doesn't it?

RE: "explain it so I can understand it in a few phrases" - I'm not sure that many one-syllable words exist.

BTW -Wallenda made it!

@UnOne - speaking of Wallenda, you would have enjoyed TMZ last night, the entire crew were making fun of Wallenda's multiple "Thank you, Jesus" comments. They also pointed out that despite Wallenda's faith, there was still an ambulance waiting at the bottom, just in case his wholiness was busy with something else that day.

An ambulance at the bottom? Talk about optimism. Wouldn't a hearse have made more sense than an ambulance?

Thank you, Unseen, for your comment on my proof. I'm certain you are well intended, and a nice guy. However, I strongly disagree with most of what you wrote. And so, in the spirit of open debate, I respond as follows:

You mentioned "Einstein's standard". Einstein's standard was, "Make everything as simple as possible, BUT NOT MORE SO." His seminal papers on Special Relativity, Brownian Motion, the Photoelectic Effect (for which he got the Nobel Prize), and General Relativity each contain mathematics that is MUCH more advanced than anything in my proof, and Einstein provides no math education in his papers. For physics students, each of Einstein's four papers can easily take a lot more than nine hours to understand (and General Relativity can take YEARS to understand). Would you find Einstein's papers "ridiculous" simply because you could not "understand it in a few phrases"? With all due respect, what you seem to be demanding is the violation Einstein's rule by making things "simpler" than they actually are, and thereby making them WRONG. What if your criticism of me were instead applied to Einstein? Would it be that "nobody is going to bother to examine"  Einstein's seminal papers? Nonsense. They WERE read by qualified people who understood them, and the rest is history. If you are unwilling to invest the time to understand General Relativity, then it's not for you, and that is OKAY. You can have an amateurish "understanding" of General Relativity as in pop cultuire, and talk about "black holes" and "curve space," but I wouldn't recommend sitting for a final exam in a physics class!

I posted my comment and link because SOME people (not "nobody") will find my proof of great interest, as indeed many people already have. You have clearly indicated that YOU are uninterested in investing the time needed to understand my proof. That's fine. What if you enrolled in a college class and demanded that the professor explain the whole course on the first day "in a few phrases"? And if the professor refused, would you denounce his/her class? You have concluded that, because you (and perhaps others like you) require what amounts to instant gratification, that "nobody is going to bother to examine" my proof, and that is a false generalization. It is therefore wholly irrational (e.g. Jim and Harry don't like vegetables, therefore nobody likes vegetables). Nor does my proof require taking anything "on faith" as you state is "so typical." Nor does "the proof consist of nine hours of videos" as you say. The proof consists of just THREE PAGES, but you are unlikely to understand those three pages without watching the videos, whose primary purpose is education. 

In any event, I thank you again for your comment, and I hope I was not too harsh in my response. I wish you all the best. Cheers, Mark


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service