Divine Existence Proven by Reason Alone
Offline Of Necessity and Deity
A god is a being which exists without owing its existence to another being (that is, a self-existent being). Any god must be able to serve as the source of existence (e.g. its own) (by definition of self-existent).
QUESTION - Whether there is a god.
PRIMARY ASSUMPTION – The Law of Contradiction holds true universally; a thing cannot both “be” and “not be”, in the same manner and at the same time.
PRIMARY PRAXIS – If the conclusion to a line of thought violates the Law of Contradiction, it will be discarded (because to violate that Law is to reject its universal command, which we have assumed).
1. For a universe to exist, a god must exist. Because...
Whether a universe self-exists or exists without self-existing, it follows that a god exists. Because...
-If it self-exists, a god exists, as it itself is a god (by definition of god).
-If it does not self-exist, but still exists, a god exists. Because...
--If it exists by another (or, others), there must be an ultimate and self-existent “other”. Because...
---There is a result (namely, a universe that exists without self-existing).
---Any result requires an ultimate cause (by definition of result) (and an ultimate cause must be self-existent by definition of ultimate).
--It does exist by another (or, others) (by definition of exist without self-existing).
---To exist without self-existing is to exist by another (or, others) (by definition of self)
--Therefore, an ultimate “other” exists which self-exists.
---This is a god (by definition of god).
- An existent universe must either self-exist or not – there are no other alternatives.
- Therefore, there is no option that does not require self-existence (and, thus, deity).
2. A universe exists – there are no other alternatives. Because...
For something to be an alternative, it must exist.
-Otherwise it would “be” (namely, an alternative) without “being” in the first place, which is a contradiction – following praxis, we will disregard such ideas.
Nonexistence does not exist (by definition of nonexistence).
Therefore, something exists – and the existence of something constitutes a universe.
3. Therefore, a god exists.
___________________________________________________________________________
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
- Login to post comments
You have not defined "being."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Oops. You're right. "Being" -- Something that exists.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
Not many of us would agree with that definition - I would say something has to be alive and have some level of consciousness in order to be a being (ie and insect would be a being, but not a plant and certainly not a car.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Look at the word "being". It is simply a form of the word "to be". Thus anything which "is", is a "being".
Nevertheless, if you do not agree with that definition, substitute that word for something you are more comfortable with. For example, "something that exists".
I'd really like to know your thoughts on the argument itself; so far we are just discussing semantics.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
so your argument is that the universe is god?
what implications does that have? (is it any different from not calling the universe god, and just calling it the universe?)
Good question. What practical knowledge do we gain from that? What predictions can be asserted from this conclusion?
So then, you would not define any of the Olympians as gods? What of the Aesir and Vanir?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
No, that is not my argument. A universe is a system of existent things. Thus if something exists, it constitutes a universe in itself. Suppose that a self-existent being or a "god" exists; such a being would be his own universe.
The question whether our universe is a god is not being addressed here. I say it is not, for our universe was brought into being (this event included a rapid expansion of matter into four dimensions; three spacial and one temporal) and thus is not self-existent.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
The Grecian gods (with the possible exception of Gaia) do not fall under the definition I am here using, no. I do not know of the Aesir or the Vanir.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
They'd be the norse gods.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
In that case, this seems to be a logical restatement of the Kalam cosmological principle, with the added burden that God must be a universe in itself. Or am I misreading the logic?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Yeah, but there doesn't seem to be enough information about them to determine whether they had any self-existent gods. If some of there gods were self-existent, then they fall under the definition of "god" that I am here using. But there just doesn't seem to be enough info to tell.
Ginnungagap seems to have been considered a self-existent being, although it was just a non-living place.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
Well, since 'universe' means ' the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated', then anything you can postulate including any creator, would, by definition, be only a part of the universe, and so the universe would be self-existent.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Correct. But because nobody commonly uses "universe" so broadly, I refer to that broader definition as the "Greater Universe". Usually, we use "universe" simply to mean that part of the universe that we can observe and occupy -- the cosmos. And that part of the Greater Universe exists dependent on the "creator-portion" of the Greater Universe, which is not dependent on anything for its own existence. It is that specific, self-existent portion of the Greater Universe that I am speaking of here -- and I call it God.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
If a universe is a system of things, and something that exists is a universe, then isn't a universe a system of universes? Are there any things that aren't universes?
But none of this is included in your purely reason-based proof right?
From your initial post, what reason is there to suspect that the universe is not god, or that there is a god that is not the universe?
I suppose you could say that. How you use "universe" depends on your context. An existent thing could be described as a universe in and of itself, isolated from the rest of the universe, but when you are considering it within the context of other existent things it would be unusual -- which is why it sounds funny to say "a universe [is] a system of universes".
Exactly, because the position on the universe's origins that I gave above did not come from reason alone. In that case, reason was complimented by experience and observation. So I did not include it.
From my initial post, nothing. But my initial post does not address the subject of our universe, just of the idea of universes in general. We can know that our universe is not God because "our universe is not self-existent"; but this quoted statement does not come from reason alone, thus it has no place in my initial post. It comes from reason complimented by experience and observation.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
*poke poke*
April fools is over
It's certainly related, but I would not go so far as to equate the two. It seems to have much more in common with the "necessary being" or "sustaining cause" arguments; what I believe is unique is its presentation in strict Thomistic format.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
I don't follow. Are you trying to imply that my argument is foolish? If so, for what precise reason have you thus concluded?
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
First, it seems like you would be describing things similar to virtual particles as gods.
Second, say you have beings A, B, C, and D, all of which are not self-existing. If A creates B creates C creates D creates A, what is to be said about A-D?
It seems to me that this argument at best defines god as being a synonym for the universe, which doesn't really help.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Well, given that time is a quality of the cosmos, the external existence of the cosmos is not bound by time. Given that, what prevents it from being self-existent without any 'greater' aspect to it?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
No, anything that 'is' 'is'. Anything that is a being is a being and that word is well-defined and understood. You've created your own definition and etymology.
Why should we accept your arbitrary definition of god?
Using your argument it would be possible to 'prove' the existence of any sort of thing simply by tweaking definitions. This is just silly.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
The problem is that you have provided at least two different definitions of the word "universe" ("a set of things" and "anything" and also possibly "god" ). You need to pick one and use it, otherwise there's no way to know what you're trying to say.
So your proof doesn't prove anything. All it appears to say is that things exist and that some of them created themselves and some of them did not. There's no conclusions that can be drawn at all. Basically, what is your point?
Even if your definition is true, what is the point? Atheists don't believe in a supernatural god. However you twist your definition, it means nothing.
Yes, making up your own definitions is very poor logic. I could define the Flying Spaghetti Monster as "A large ammount of spaghetti flying through the air" make a big pot of spaghetti then throw it. Would this prove the existance of the FSM? I don't think so.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
oh course it wouldnt !.... because you forgot the 2 big meat balls ^_^
What Would Kharn Do?
Congratulations. You've successfully proven that IF you define God as something that definitely exists, then God definitely exists. God is the universe. You are a pantheist.
Oh, and you don't get to say anything else about God because you have only demonstrated that it is the universe. It does not have any sentient properties, and cannot be the source of any religion unless you offer a logical proof to the contrary.
Have fun with pantheism.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
As some others have mentioned, I also disagree with your definition of "being". I just pulled up dictionary.com and by the definition on there a being is "conscious, mortal existence; life", which is the definition I have always known. You also said to someone that they are getting into semantics, but your whole argument is based on semantics, hence why you defined many terms and referred to many definitions.
Lets say that a being is just an existence. In that case you are correct, the universe is a "god". That certainly does not mean that a god exists in the sense of the Christian God or of the Islamic God. It merely means that the universe does self-exist.
You must take into consideration that we will surely discover more on the origins of the universe as we progress. Just because we cannot explain how the universe got here does not mean we have to call it a god. There may be and most likely are better explanations we have not uncovered yet. What you have said is similar to ancient times when humans used to view the sun as a god, simply because of their lack in understanding of it.
By the proof you presented the universe is a god. But as I said earlier, it is not a conscience being like any of the gods people believe in here on Earth, such as the Christian God. Because it is not a conscience or supernatural being, but rather a part of nature, it fits well under the beliefs of an atheist.
Again, thank you for your rational approach.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Stephen Roberts
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." --Carl Sagan
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." --Don Hirschberg
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." --Thomas Jefferson
*sniff sniff* Can anyone else smell sockpuppet? Or at the very least colleague?
Any mods care to check and confirm/deny my suspicions for me?
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
Please feel free to scan my IP Adress if necessary, you've got my permission. I think I know what you are accusing me of, and I understand why you are suspicious, since I registered about 30 minutes ago, lol.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Stephen Roberts
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." --Carl Sagan
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." --Don Hirschberg
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." --Thomas Jefferson
Have fun with pantheism.
OKay ???
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
Pantheism is an xlint helpful supporting "stepping stone" in the road for those moving away from the god of abe religions ..... Hey the universe has consciousness in it !
WOW ...... , so G A W E D L Y ! ummmm
? ................. 
INDEED !
Just amazing ain't it.
Atheism Books.
This is not a recognizable definition, and actually seems like conflation.
If you use an unrecognizable and unnecessary definition, you can make this argument. But it isn't anything but a rebranding of what is with the hollowed out shell of what you want to be. I'd hesitate to even call it pantheism.
You've arbitrarily assigned an answer to an infinite regress, and also arbitrarily removed the obstacles to the concept not being a blatant non-sequitur; but you've thrown out the baby with the bath water, because nothing remains to differentiate the god concept offered from no god at all. It would almost be better to conflate a god with something known to exist (unlike the solution to an infinite regress) like a toaster oven. If god is a toaster oven, and toaster ovens exist, then god exists. Instead, you've heaped your conflation onto a non-sequitur.
1. If infinite regress exists, God cannot exist, because God is the first cause.
2. Therefore, infinite regress doesn't exist.
3. Since infinite regress doesn't exist (2), therefore, (C) God exists.
Thank you, everyone. For my next trick, I'll prove that Elvis is alive and living in Patagonia with Hitler's dog.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm not sure what those are, and wikipedia isn't being very helpful. Do virtual particles exist of their own accord or because of something else?
I don't see how this circular idea would be possible. Limit it to two, for simplicity's sake: can A sustain B sustain A? Can there be an irreducible existential symbiosis? It seems not, though I might not be able to put my finger on the why of the matter. But if both of them depend on the other for their own existence, they would both have to exist infinitely, always together, in the same manner forever. You might not even be able to call them two distinct beings.
Two different people have come to that same conclusion, but it certainly is not the intention of the argument. Where do you get the idea that "god" must be "the universe", and which universe are you talking about?
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
Self-existence is not a question of time. Suppose that there is an everlasting lightbulb, and it has been turned on for eternity. Obviously, the light which comes from it does not "self-exist". Even though it has existed forever, the light still depends on the bulb for its own existence.
Take that analogy to the universe: I say that the cosmos is like the light, and am trying to prove that, since the "light" (i.e. the cosmos) exists, there must be a "bulb" (i.e. a god) producing it.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
There is no problem with using the word "being" to simply mean "that which is". That is the primary definition of "being" in every dictionary that I have checked. As long as we're speaking English, let's try not to take terms and strip them of their construction, okay?
That's a loaded question if I ever saw one. First rule of semantics: the speaker defines the terms. You should except my definition of "god" because I am the one who wrote the argument.
"tweaking definitions"? I used the term "god" to mean exactly what I said it means throughout the entire article. There was no tweaking at all; please substantiate your ridiculous complaints.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
Good point. Revision, then: Read the argument as though the word "universe" never appears. All such instances should be replaced with "something" and the contexts adjusted to accomodate the different tenses, etc.
It would be logically impossible to create oneself; my argument says nothing of the sort. Self-existent does not equal self-created.
The point is that there does exist a being, distinct from the cosmos, which sustains the existence of the cosmos. At least to me, that seems equivalent to theism, a conclusion I would be uncomfortable with if I were an atheist.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
The word "supernatural" implies the existence of a distinct and definite nature, the only one of which we have experience with is our universe. If my argument holds true for our world, it follows that there exists a being, distinct from this world (that is, supernatural, in our eyes), which sustains the existence of our world by his power.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
You do not have the privilege of defining "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" because that refers to a specific postulated being, as indicated by the word "the" which denotes specification. If you defined "a" flying spaghetti monster as you did, then threw the pasta, you would indeed have organized such a "monster" -- though only as you defined it.
In other words, you can only define general terms -- which is what I did. Even though I don't have the privilege of defining, for example, "the Christian god", I can still define the word "god" isolated from any Christian context.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
I did nothing of the sort; that would be illogical. If you defined "unicorn" as "an existing member of a horse-like species with a horn-like head-growth", would that prove that a unicorn exists? No, it would be a contradiction, for there is no such being.
I didn't say God is the universe, and neither does it follow. Nor does pantheism. Please substantiate your claims, because they appear foolish to me.
What an extraordinary claim! Please substantiate it.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
This claim doesn't follow from your original argument. How are you reaching the conclusion that the cosmos isn't self-existent, using reason alone?
You're right, that claim does not follow from my original argument. That's why I didn't include it in my original argument. But we happen to have experience with a universe, and we happen to know from experience (not from reason) that our universe does not self-exist. And my claim follows from that plus my original argument.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
I can only see that happening if I conflated this definition of a god with the Christian god. But I did not do that; there are some similarities, but not enough can be derived from this argument alone to justify any claims of equivalency.
It's not pantheism. Although, if our cosmos did self-exist, it would be; but no one has substantiated that yet, and in fact all evidence is to the contrary. I agree that this is a "hollowed out shell of" the Christian god, but this argument is not supposed to justify the postulate that the Christian god exists so I see no reason to deride the argument for that fact.
I did assign an answer to infinite regress, as part of the definition of "result". On a related note, I've never talked with an atheist who actually believes the infinite regress postulate. I've only talked to ones who like to through it up there and say, "Aha! You haven't disproven this yet, so I can discount your whole argument!" It seems rather like a game of avoidance. Tell me: are you suggesting that you believe the infinite regression postulate?
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
(2) does not follow from (1). It seems you would need to substantiate that God must exist somewhere between (1) and (2). You might say,
1). If infinite regress exists, God cannot exist...
1.5) God must exist.
2) Therefore, infinite regress doesn't exist.
3. Since infinite regress doesn't exist (2), therefore, (C) God exists.
But that would be silly because (C) does nothing more han apply (1.5).
I think you should just drop that argument altogether.
I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!
What experience do you have that suggests the universe does not self-exist?
Of course it does. To use your analogy, the 'light' isn't a single thing, it's a progression of photon emissions. Each photon is a discrete amount of energy shaped into that form by the bulb. Before a specific point in time, the energy didn't exist as light. If we say that the light doesn't 'self-exist', then we have to mean as light. The energy itself has existed forever, and was only created if the universe was created. If the universe itself is self-existent, then that energy is also self-existent. We can't say it was 'created', because energy/matter cannot be truly created or destroyed, only altered.
If we're going to declare that something 'created' the universe, though, then your analogy would require that the light would, by comparison, need to be created, so let's work within that framework. If the bulb is 'creating' the photons, then while it appears 'the light' has existed forever, each photon only exists while it's in transit from emitter to impact. Creation is inextricably linked to time, because to create something means that there must have been a point where that thing did not exist, so it could be created.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Yes, the word supernatural implies that we have a distinct nature, but please explain to me how that means there is a being outside of this nature. If your argument holds true, which it truly doesn't, it shows that the universe can be defined as a god, that doesn't have anything to do with supernatural forces existing outside our universe. You're skipping an entire step in logic there.
Why "only?" It could have been any number of god concepts, but your "hypothesis" bears more than a passing resemblance to the cosmological argument (as applied to the Abrahamic god concept). The whole thing is rhetorical, so the distinction between one empty conflation and another is completely arbitrary.
The stink of the god of the gaps is upon you.
It's relevant because of the resemblance. I'd be very surprised if your perspective wasn't watered down Christianity, judging by your argument alone. Altering it slightly doesn't shed its history.
I have no idea what this sentence means, but I'll repeat that your answer is either an arbitrary argument from ignorance, or a conflation. Actually, since we don't know the answer to regress, whether it be a deliberate agent or not, your argument is from ignorance either way.
I wasn't aware that was the point of the concept; rather only that an argument from ignorance (i.e. the necessity of an uncaused cause, as stated in the cosmological argument) is not a valid one.
Don't bait me into a straw-man. I don't know the origin of the cosmos, but I choose to acknowledge this ignorance, and accept it tentatively, rather than ply it with comforting nonsense.
So many want to say this is "Divine" , works for me , especially with long tall sally by my side .... So when it comes to dogma style , I do that only with my girls .....
Otherwise, NO to that dogma GOD crap ..... all is g o d , get over it already ..... and so said jesus too! Then they nailed him
mind you, with Big nails, Spikes !
Then bible Paul finished the job ..... and so came Xianity ..... an amazing story indeed .....
ummm ? So how should I pray ? ..... but the story Jesus dude said this is heaven now !
Wow, this is so confusing
..... hey god, WTF are you pulling here ? 
Atheism Books.
This is basically a jazzed up version of the "Everything has a creator" argument.